DEI Integrity: Supporting Best DEI Practices in these Surreal Times

DEI practitioners are facing an unprecedented onslaught of efforts to flip scripts, undermine civility, defy logic, and override justice, equity, and inclusion with lethal nonsense and thinly-veiled bigotry. It can be not only intellectually challenging but personally and professionally perilous to try to speak up against it. You can find yourself thinking,“Maybe they have a point? Even if I’m pretty sure they don’t, do I put myself at risk by engaging with my students, colleagues, and others to foster clear and corrective understanding?” 

I’m going to offer periodic attempts to scaffold approaches to maintaining clear and constructive DEI practice in the face of the current scourge - thoughts on how we might respond without partisanship or anything other than critical thinking grounded in facts. I just think we all need to do whatever we can to support each other - always and especially these days. If there’s a particular topic/question/challenge you’d like me to weigh-in on, please let me know. For now…

Case in Point: Defense of “Conversion Therapy” 

As reported in this NYT article, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appears ready to strike down Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy, framing the issue as one of free speech rather than professional ethics or public health. The case questions whether a state can restrict a licensed therapist from attempting to “change” a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. “Colorado’s statute prohibits “any practice or treatment” that tries to change a minor’s ‘gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.’”

When the Supreme Court heard arguments this week in a case challenging Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy,” the conversation focused narrowly on free speech: can a state tell a therapist what they may or may not say to a client? Missing from both the courtroom dialogue and much of the reporting was a crucial, clarifying question — one that exposes the logical and moral fault line in the debate.

Here’s what’s missing in the article and SCOTUS consideration

If a therapist’s efforts to “convert” a gay or transgender child to heterosexuality or cisgender identity are protected as free speech, then symmetry requires the same protection for efforts to convert heterosexual or cisgender children in the opposite direction. No one, including the plaintiffs, entertains that possibility. The asymmetry reveals the true nature of the claim: not a principled defense of speech, but a selective defense of private preference.

This is a classic example of ideological framing masquerading as constitutional principle — and an opportunity for DEI practitioners and educators to model critical reasoning without partisanship or indoctrination. The key move is to engage students and others in symmetry thinking: whenever someone claims a right, ask whether that right applies equally in all potential outcome directions. If not, what’s being advocated is not freedom but tendentious power-backed preference.

The empirical record is clear: conversion therapy has been shown to increase depression, anxiety, and suicidality among minors. It is harmful pseudoscience. When advocates dress it up as “free speech” or “religious conscience,” they aren’t broadening liberty; they’re narrowing safety for the vulnerable by constructing rhetorical armor to protect bigotry.

The current Court and journalists may not make that crucial distinction, but DEI practitioners can — and must — help communities see that integrity in diversity work is not about policing or imposing private belief or standing mute and complicit as others seek to do so; it’s about insisting that logic and critical thinking apply equally and equitably to everyone.

Thanks for keeping ten toes down when it comes to DEI integrity.