DEI’s Time of Reckoning
Patrik Schumacher, London 2025
Afterword to Five Critical Essays on Diversity, Equity & Inclusion in Architecture,
Edited by Austin Williams,
TRG Publishing, London 2025
This collection of essay offers a timely critical engagement with an ideology and ideological practice – DEI – that has in recent years been increasingly interfering with the functioning of institutions like universities, schools, public administrations, and businesses. Our discipline – architecture – has also been infiltrated by this ideological current, affecting the functioning of schools of architecture, the RIBA, various industry awards, Biennales and, last but not least, architectural firms. The growth of woke ideology was a steady trend for many years but was much accelerated since the death of black US citizen George Floyd (in May 2020) at the hands of a white police officer and since the global wave of BLM protests that followed. In response DEI efforts were ramped up in the US, Britain, and everywhere else in the Western world. A wave of DEI consultancy firms sprung up to promote and cater for this demand. This trigger event by itself should make us pause and reflect: why should an arrest gone lethal in the City of Minneapolis have a massive impact on the culture in architectural schools, professional associations, exhibition events, and the corporate culture of architectural firms, in Britain or elsewhere? This does not make rational sense, and indicates that we are confronted with a moral panic and ideological fad, rather than a sensible, necessary reform process. The backlash against this woke wave came soon enough, and with the election of Trump (to some extent helped by the backlash against woke ideology) the reversal of the forward march of DEI is on the agenda; a good moment to take stock and debate the merits and demerits of DEI. The essays in this volume make an informed and thoughtful contribution. They all see DEI as net negative, as an unproductive interference in the functioning of institutions. This is also the conclusion of two books I would like to recommend here, both coming from authors with left leanings, and both with a respectful approach towards the ideology they in the end conclude must be rejected: Yascha Mounk’s ‘The Identity Trap’, and ‘Social (In)Justice’ by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay. Its important not to let the current wave of justified backlash against the excesses of wokeness overshoot in the opposite direction.
The problem with DEI cannot be reduced to recent post-George-Floyd excesses but is more fundamental. The problem lies with fundamental conceptual deviations from liberalism. Before I go into some of these deviations, I also want to suggest that this ideology is fuelled by the opportunities for activism it affords. The radicalisation and drive to excesses is then the outcome of a dynamic where the gradual elimination of injustices naturally leads to the search for new injustices, as it were “new markets” to keep the activist “industry” going. I have long been noticing this paradox that the disappearance of racism correlates with the intensification of anti-racism. One of the most fundamental fallacies of anti-racism is the shortcut identification of persistent group differences in economic standing or in occupational representation with evidence of prejudice and discrimination. Thomas Sowell has been making compelling (extensively research-backed) arguments against this fallacy for many decades.
As hinted above, DEI agendas contain momentous deviations from liberalism’s foundational principles. This is significant because these principles are the foundations upon which the prosperity and freedom of our market-based liberal democracies has been build and, in my view, continues to depend on. Here’s is my list of the most momentous deviations:
Focus on Group Identity Over Individual Rights:
Traditional liberalism prioritizes individual rights, freedoms, and agency, emphasizing equality under the law. DEI frameworks, by contrast, often focus on collective identities (e.g., race, gender, sexuality), treating individuals primarily as members of groups rather than autonomous agents. This shift undermines the liberal ideal of universal principles applied equally to all.
Equality of Outcome vs. Equality of Opportunity:
Liberalism advocates for creating equal opportunities for all, expecting individuals to succeed differentially based on their abilities and effort. DEI agendas often prioritize equity—understood as equal outcomes across demographic groups—by using measures like quotas, preferential policies, or reparative practices. This approach clashes with liberal values by disregarding merit-based systems and individual choice.
Restriction of Free Speech and Open Debate:
Liberalism values free speech, open debate, and the contestation of ideas as essential to progress. However, some woke and DEI frameworks promote restrictions on speech deemed harmful, offensive, or contrary to their ideological aims. This can lead to self-censorship, cancel culture, and suppression of dissenting views, which undermine liberal principles of intellectual freedom.
Moralizing Debate and Intolerance for Dissent:
Liberalism traditionally endorses toleration of differing views. Woke ideology, however, is over-moralizing, labeling dissent as oppressive, or malicious. This creates an “us vs. them” dynamic that stifles productive dialogue and alienates those who might otherwise support inclusion.
Expansion of State Power:
Liberalism has traditionally been wary of overreach by the state, advocating for limited government to protect individual freedoms. Many DEI initiatives require the expansion of bureaucratic structures and regulatory frameworks to enforce compliance, which can raise concerns about over-centralization and state coercion.
Erosion of Universalism:
Liberalism’s universalist ethos—that truth is objective and rights and freedoms belong to all, regardless of identity—is weakened by woke frameworks, which advocate relativistic notions of subjective truths as well as differential treatment of groups based on historical injustices. This risks creating new forms of inequality and resentment, undermining social cohesion.
Victimhood Narratives:
DEI frameworks often emphasize historical grievances and systemic oppression, creating a culture where victimhood can confer moral authority. This approach generates ‘moral hazard’ in that it can discourage personal responsibility and foster dependency rather than empowerment.
To conclude, from a liberal perspective, the deviations of woke ideology and DEI agendas from traditional liberalism arise primarily from their focus on group identities, equity-based frameworks, excessive moralizing, relativism, and the tendency to promote the illiberal expansion of coercive institutional powers and state powers. While these movements aim to address historical and structural inequities, their methods often conflict with liberal values like individualism, meritocracy, free expression, and universal rights. A liberal critique suggests that a balance must be struck to ensure inclusivity and justice without compromising these foundational principles our continued prosperity and freedom depends on.