Even when faced with restrictive legislation, organizations and individuals can take action to safeguard diversity efforts.
“Universities in states where these bills have not passed need to be prepared for the possibility that they could be proposed and become law very quickly,” Young said. Utah’s EDI ban, which outlawed diversity offices at universities and government agencies, was signed by the state’s governor just 2 weeks after its introduction.
Institutions in all states, therefore, should have a clear plan for how to respond if and/or when their EDI work comes under threat. That includes preparing talking points and building coalitions, but it also requires organizations to get creative in fulfilling their commitment to enhancing equity, Bautista said.
For example, a university that pledges to support certain groups that have historically been excluded—such as religious minorities, underrepresented racial groups, and people with disabilities—can have a plan in place to continue recruiting from spaces where these communities are represented, such as relevant professional organizations, so that they are included in the applicant pool even if “diversity hires” are forbidden in the state.
“If laws are passed in your state that prevent funding for formal programming, how can your institution find ways to continue delivering on those commitments?” she said.
Individuals can also act now, both by preparing their personal support networks and routines and by voicing their support for EDI efforts to university leadership. Sellers recommends taking 5 minutes to email your institution’s president and board of trustees and explain why continued equity work is critical, citing supporting research and noting that leaders will receive plenty of messages stating the opposite. Beck suggests contacting your institution or organization’s government affairs office to learn how to get involved with advocacy.
When it comes to organizing, garnering support from a range of sources is key, Sellers said. Grassroots efforts; student, parent, and alumni groups; and campus leaders all have a role to play.
State psychological associations are an important rallying point for psychologists; in Missouri, Beck helped form an alliance with other organizations, including the National Association of Social Workers’ state chapter. The coalition has coordinated in-person and written testimony opposing Do No Harm and other proposed legislation. Beck is also educating members across the Missouri Psychological Association about advocacy, including how to submit their own testimony.
Psychologists can access federal advocacy tools and training through APA’s Advocacy Team. Formal resolutions, such as APA’s first policy statement on Evidence-Based Inclusive Care for Transgender, Gender Diverse, and Nonbinary Individuals, can be leveraged against misinformation. The National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, the American Federation of Teachers, and PEN America also offer resources to assist with organizing and advocacy. APA’s equity, diversity, and inclusion framework is another helpful resource with science-backed guidance to aid advocacy.
“We will feel the effects of these threats individually, but we have to be able to resist them collectively,” Jafar said.
In responding to anti-EDI efforts, Young suggests grounding resistance in the mission of your discipline. For example, APA’s Code of Ethics states that all people deserve equal access to the contributions of psychology, and APA’s Resolution on APA, Psychology, and Human Rights (PDF, 152KB) discusses the importance of addressing human rights violations, promoting social justice, and advocating for the well-being of individuals and communities worldwide.
“Rooting your continued support for diversity in your discipline’s mission is going to be the key to surviving some of this,” he said.
Though much of the rhetoric surrounding EDI bans involves fighting words, Dovidio warns against solely defending against an attack. A better approach, he said, is to emphasize the broader goals of EDI and work to find common ground.
“Part of it is stepping back and rather than getting in the trenches, thinking about what it is we want to accomplish,” he said. “Why use loaded terms when what you’re really trying to do is get at the concepts?”
More specifically, Dovidio suggests clearly articulating the broader goals of EDI, including productivity, fairness, justice, and building a society where everyone has the opportunity to achieve their full potential. Advocates can also explain that EDI brings together all groups (including those who have traditionally held power in society, such as White men) and that efforts to improve diversity are win-win (one group benefiting does not mean another group loses).
Existing EDI programs could also be reworked to better reflect what psychologists know about creating change. Efforts to change individuals and to broaden the understanding of the science of diversity may lead to reactance and lack effectiveness over the long term. A focus on shifting norms, structures, and leaders—as well as building relationships—is more likely to generate lasting change, Dovidio said.
“Threat makes us myopic. We get divisive and defensive,” he said. “How can we, in a time of threat, be smarter and wiser than that?”
