Photo credit: BigStockPhoto/LHW
by Allan Barsky, JD, MSW, PhD
For proponents of the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), these are perilous times. The federal government and various states have defunded—or threatened to defund—various DEI programs and offices. DEI initiatives have been dismantled at various government-funded agencies, schools, universities, hospitals, and other programs (Ng et al., 2025; Weissner, 2025). Many organizations, public and private, have “voluntarily” ended their DEI policies, scrubbed mention of DEI from their websites, removed related books from libraries, and, in some instances, advised employees that supporting DEI could put their jobs at risk.
For social workers, the attacks against DEI strike the core of our profession. The National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics (NASW, 2021) calls upon us to promote social justice, demonstrate respect for the dignity and worth of all people, and foster human relationships—principles that are intertwined with the goals of DEI. So, how can social workers respond in light of these growing attacks?
The Problem: Demonization of DEI
Among DEI’s critics, the term DEI has been demonized as promoting individuals based on particular identity characteristics rather than qualifications (e.g., using dismissive language such as “DEI hires”). Critics have suggested that DEI policies are not only wasteful and radical, but also discriminatory against people who identify as White, male, or able-bodied. They claim that DEI protects or advances the interests of “special interest groups,” while excluding or hurting other groups (Iyer, 2022).
Social workers and other proponents of DEI could work harder to address these misconceptions. We could also educate people about the benefits of DEI—for instance, promoting fairness, combatting discrimination, and fostering respectful and collaborative organizations and communities.
Unfortunately, education alone may be insufficient. The term DEI has been weaponized. It is a political lightning rod. There are many anti-DEI memes circulating on the internet. Several politicians are using DEI-affiliation to attack their opponents during elections. Various news outlets have embraced anti-DEI rhetoric in their reporting.
The Court Option
Some universities, law firms, and other organizations are challenging anti-DEI actions in court (Wiessner, 2025). Legal protections against discrimination are embedded in state and federal laws, offering one avenue of resistance. Suing a state or federal agency can be expensive, and the results of such cases are still uncertain. To what extent will courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, enforce laws intended to protect people and organizations from discrimination?
Although some organizations are taking these cases to court on their own, many are starting to work together, along with civil rights organizations. Unfortunately, winning cases in court may not win favor for DEI initiatives among those who strongly oppose them.
Being Deliberate About Language
Social workers are trained to use language deliberately. In advocacy and policy development, rhetoric—particularly moral framing—can shape public opinion (Hackenburg et al., 2023). Language can play a key role in building alliances, winning favor, and advancing good causes. When considering how to deal with the backlash against DEI, should we reconsider our terminology?
This is not a call to abandon the DEI framework, but rather to explore alternative language that may be more effective in certain contexts. One option is “Constitutional rights and freedoms.” This phrase reflects many of the values that the term “DEI” was intended to express, while avoiding DEI’s current political baggage. Unlike “DEI,” this phrase is also harder to demonize. America’s Constitution is for all people—not just for liberals, not just for conservatives, and not just for one political party.
Importantly, the phrase “Constitutional rights and freedoms” should not be abbreviated to CRFs. Abbreviations are easier to corrupt than phrases that make us aware of the actual words that we are embracing. Let’s say each word, distinctly and with purpose: Constitutional—Rights—and—Freedoms. By fully speaking this phrase, we are reinforcing their gravity and embracing the Constitution—the highest law of the land, and the law that all U.S. presidents and members of Congress swear or affirm to uphold. These rights and freedoms are for all people, not just for some groups and not to be used as a weapon against others.
Substance Behind the Words
Although Constitutional rights and freedoms are connected with DEI, they are not synonymous—and perhaps this is a good thing. The practical meaning of this term can be drawn from the U.S. Constitution (n.d.) itself, particularly concepts such as equality before and under the law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, the right to vote, and the right to due process. These rights align with social work values and ethics.
Social workers may be able to use these Constitutional rights and freedoms, not just to advocate in court, but to promote good policies and practices in their organizations and communities (Barsky, 2023). Perhaps this term can be used in a way that engages broader audiences, fostering the ideals of the Constitution and reducing the risk of ideological pushback (Iyer, 2022).
Conclusion
American society is at a key inflection point, marked by a myriad of threats to the rights and freedoms for many individuals and groups. Some of the most vulnerable people in our society—immigrants, refugees, people living in poverty, people from racial and ethnic minorities, and older adults—are among those at greatest risk. This is a time when all social workers should reflect on what they can do to promote the values of social justice, respect, and human relationships—locally, nationally, and globally. As part of this reflection, it may be useful to consider the language that we use and what language may be most helpful in effectuating positive change—language that can open doors rather than close them.
References
Barsky, A. E. (2023). Essential ethics for social work practice. Oxford University Press.
Hackenburg, K., Brady, W., & Tsakiris, M. (2023). Mapping moral language on US presidential primary campaigns reveals rhetorical networks of political division and unity. Pnas Nexus, 2(6). https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad189
Iyer, A. (2022). Understanding advantaged groups' opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (dei) policies: The role of perceived threat. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 16(5). https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12666
National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Code of ethics. Author. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English
Ng, E., Fitzsimmons, T., Kulkarni, M., Ozturk, M., April, K., Banerjee, R., & Muhr, S. (2025). The anti-DEI agenda: Navigating the impact of Trump's second term on diversity, equity and inclusion. Equality Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 44, 1-14. http://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2025-0116
United States Constitution. (n.d.). U.S. Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution
Weissner, D. (2025, April 15). Law students sue US civil rights agency over crackdown on law-firm DEI policies. https://www.reuters.com/legal/law-students-sue-us-civil-rights-agency-over-crackdown-law-firm-dei-policies-2025-04-15
Allan Barsky, JD, MSW, PhD, is Professor of Social Work at Florida Atlantic University and author of Social Work Values and Ethics (Oxford University Press).
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of any of the organizations to which the author is affiliated, or the views of The New Social Worker magazine or White Hat Communications.