Why is there such fervid opposition to programs that instill understanding and appreciation for the fact that human beings are different from one another? What has happened to the moral virtue of respect for others in this country? We have unlearned the lessons, taught by all the world’s religions and secular humanism alike, that all persons have moral standing in the human community and, as such, are worthy of acknowledgment and respect.

As a moral virtue in our political democracy, respect acknowledges the humanity of others and serves as the fundamental motive for valuing others. Indeed, respect for other people is the premise of morality, both public and private, and the basic principle of a just society.

Why then all the vitriol directed to programs of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) that we see in school board meetings, state legislatures, governors’ offices, and corporate board chambers? What does DEI attempt to inculcate that so many resisters find unappealing and objectionable?

Diversity refers to the presence of a wide range of differences in race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, religious beliefs and practice, socioeconomic status, physical or mental abilities, and more within a particular group, organization, or society; we are all human, but we are not all the same.

Equity is the principle of fairness and justice that applies to circumstances where human personal and social life and the pursuit of well-being are disconnected because of the simple fact that we do not all start from the same place and have the benefit of the same advantages. It recognizes that circumstances of origin, development and opportunity are variable, and this justifies reasonable efforts to allocate the means necessary for disadvantaged persons to achieve an equitable outcome.

The notion of inclusion refers to an environment in which all individuals, regardless of their background or characteristics, are valued, respected, and included in all aspects of life. It signals the value of establishing and maintaining sociocultural spaces where persons can participate and feel a sense of belonging.

The overall goal of DEI programs is rather straightforward: create workplaces and social spaces where the differences among and between us do not work against the capacity of each and all to achieve well-being.

Such programs foster social cohesion by bringing together individuals from diverse backgrounds and cultivating empathy and compassion, understanding and appreciation for others. Diverse perspectives lead to a broader range of ideas and solutions, which can be invaluable in addressing complex societal issues; research in social psychology shows that diverse groups tend to outperform homogeneous groups in problem-solving tasks.

In addition to social and moral reasons, DEI has economic advantages. Forbes has shown that diverse workplaces and markets can lead to increased innovation, better decision-making, and broader consumer bases, which can benefit both businesses and societies.

Why, then, is there such opposition to DEI? I suspect that there are many reasons.

One reason for conservative resistance to DEI is the perception of identity politics; they argue that DEI initiatives focus too much on categorizing individuals by race, gender, or other identity factors, leading to division rather than unity. Another is that critics on the right believe policies animated by the values of DEI actually disadvantages certain groups, particularly white individuals. And yet another argument advanced by conservatives grows out of their concern to protect and advocate for traditional values and institutions; they tend to view DEI programs as a departure from these values and a threat to established norms, especially in socioeconomic contexts.

Additionally there is skepticism of government intervening with laws and regulations that impinge on personal freedom by stifling free speech and dissenting opinions. Strangely enough, DEI is thought by some to be an attempt to suppress candid conversation and intellectual diversity.

Without dismissing out of hand the concerns of the conservative resisters, I nevertheless believe that an overriding concern is finding common ground between the advocates and skeptics of DEI initiatives. Is it not possible to highlight the shared values of fairness, justice, freedom, and responsibility? It seems to me that there is much that is positive and equilibrating about privileging the moral imperative of treating all individuals with dignity and respect. In circumstances where significant personal and social differences exist, it is far more beneficial to engage in open dialogue in a search for mutual understanding and appreciation.

And one other thing. Opposition to DEI programs reflects the demise of the democratic value of tolerance. The paradox is that, since education is the most salient factor in promoting democratic values, and thus promoting tolerance, the effect of dismantling DEI programs in schools is that we are teaching intolerance!

Yes, we rightfully and reasonably expect others to treat us with respect, and this expectation is no less operational in situations where there is great heterogeneity that underscores the human social differences among us. But for progress toward an understanding and a meaningful unity among us, it is vital to find common ground, address concerns, and promote the values of unity, fairness, and justice that DEI embodies.