Despite pressure from Washington, North Bay institutions are determined to keep diversity, equity and inclusion part of the game plan
***
Diversity, equity and inclusion are three simple words, each of which expresses a positive principle.
But abbreviated and strung together as DEI, they have become a flashpoint in modern day politics, with the Trump Administration on the forefront to eliminate what it calls “illegal and immoral” DEI policies by issuing executive orders scrubbing DEI efforts in federal government agencies—with a trickle-down effect on private companies, educational institutions and non-profit organizations.
This has prompted many to declare that DEI is dead. But here in the North Bay, to paraphrase author Mark Twain, that “death” has been grossly exaggerated.
After 60-plus years of anti-discrimination programs that have been a part of the tapestry of American life, DEI is nowhere near the grave.
A pivot, not abandonment
“I am not seeing an abandonment of DEI,” says Jennifer Persike, president and founder of Sacramento-based JP & Co., an organizational consulting firm that works with nonprofit organizations and public water agencies, including Sonoma Water.
“The situation that folks are in right now is they’re pivoting, like we always have to do on various things once they get politicized,” Persike says. “While the three letters DEI are sort of persona non grata right now, it does not mean that folks are abandoning the goals around what that really represents.” DEI creates a more inclusive workforce, looks at the leadership of organizations and makes sure if they are elected or appointed that they represent the constituency that’s being served by that organization, Persike explains.
“It’s an evolution, like so many things. We may not want to use those letters, but the commitment, because California is the most diverse state in the union, is to ensure that we are creating opportunity for everyone. That’s really the focus.”
Media hype
While media reports might create the impression that DEI is on its way out, data tells a different story. According to a study by Resume.org earlier this year, 87% of companies are either maintaining or increasing DEI budgets, despite political pressure. This is because companies understand that younger generations of consumers—their future, in short—are drawn to companies that have inclusive and equitable values.
Persike also serves as vice chair of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), “which was created to increase diversity and inclusion in the water industry because historically it’s been very engineering focused and very white-male focused for decades,” she says. “But the fact of the matter is that the next generations that are coming into the workforce—more than 30% from Gen Z—are demographically distinct and ethnically diverse.”
They are also socially aware, she adds. “These new generations coming up don’t see color, they don’t see ethnicity; they want diversity in an organization that they are going to work for.” As a result, as organizations build cultures, “they are still looking at ways to be as inclusive as possible because the diversity is what brings creative solutions. If we’re all the same, we’re not going to come up with the best new idea.”
Incorporating DEI
For decades after passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, American companies, organizations and institutions have systematically incorporated diversity, equity and inclusion into their strategic plans, recruitment efforts and external positioning.
“If you go on websites, you see a lot of focus on organizational priorities of inclusion and creating a positive culture,” Persike says. “These are all the things I think have been the outgrowth of the DEI movement. Folks are not really looking at this as a kind of ‘check the box’ exercise or ‘gee, we’re going to pick this person because of their ethnicity.’ They’re still looking for the best candidate, but increasingly that picture is a much more diverse number of candidates. That’s what we’ve evolved to.”
Persike concedes there is a “rebranding” of DEI taking place “because of the climate that we’re seeing now in terms of how the federal government is operating in this space.”
“But again, in California, the goal is really around increasing opportunity and making sure that these up-and-coming folks that are going to be in our workforce see all these different places that they could spend their careers,” she says. “And they want to see inclusive work environments.”
According to Persike, more than 50% of the workforce in California’s public water agencies will be retiring by 2030—in just five short years.
“We’ve got to get ready for the next generation because they’re here, not just in the water industry but really in every industry,” she concludes.
Play, or no pay
As part of its effort to end DEI programs, the federal government is holding back and/or rescinding funding for a plethora of programs that impact not only companies, but state and local governments and educational institutions at all levels.
In February, the Department of Education, which the Trump Administration is trying to eliminate, issued a letter instructing schools and colleges to end race-specific programs by March 1 or risk losing federal funding. Local school officials in both Napa and Sonoma counties said the directive lacked legal weight and stuck to their guns in reaffirming DEI in their schools. More recently, the Trump Administration temporarily held back other education funds that were approved under a continuing resolution in March, finally releasing them in July. That said, most of the money that funds the California education system comes from the state, not the feds.
“DEI is a term that’s really become too loaded,” says Amie Carter, Sonoma County superintendent of schools. “It really loses sight of what diversity, equity and inclusion means for our schools. When it comes to education, our focus is creating classrooms and campuses where everyone feels like they’re welcome, everyone feels included and no one feels marginalized. In a nutshell, that’s what DEI means in education. When it’s presented that way, even people of different political views are supportive of that effort.”
Carter says Sonoma County will never back away from “welcoming schools and integrative and inclusive environments.”
“There’s just too much research and support that shows that those are the kind of environments that you want to create for children,” she says.
Carter says Sonoma County schools don’t really experience a lot of pressure from the community around its efforts to have welcoming and inclusive schools, but notes that “there are scopes of work that are relevant to our work with schools that have sort of ended up in this anti-DEI bucket.” Among them, she says, are migrant education, work for English language learners and targeted support of students who have unique needs. “And that is difficult to navigate.”
Carter describes “a cultural mismatch of how we’re experiencing some of this anti-DEI effort that seems off book from our purpose and what we’re constituted to do—which is to provide a rich learning experience for every child that walks in our door.”
For example, the Sonoma County Office of Education must make sure its schools are safe and welcoming to all students and families, “and that we address things that drive bullying or marginalization on our campuses,” Carter says. “So we partner with the Human Rights Campaign to engage in a welcoming schools initiative, and this really focuses on the bullying that takes place, particularly for LGBTQ+ students.”
She says research shows that when the district focuses on that, all bullying goes down. “The lessons we’ve learned there, in turn, apply to other bullying instances and it offers strategies to interrupt bias-based speech and behaviors, including racism and misogyny. So that’s been a valuable initiative we’ve been engaged in.
“We’re also focused on support for those multi-lingual learners,” Carter continues. Noting that about 19% of students in Sonoma County are English language learners. “We’ve engaged in a lot of professional development and offerings to make sure those students feel included in our campuses—that we’re using classroom strategies that integrate cultural backgrounds and honor the rich tapestry of American history and include all races and creeds that have played a part in that history.
“[We’re] finding ways to make sure that it’s in our curriculum and reflected in our schools.”
The Sonoma County Office of Education also conducts outreach to the multi-lingual and migrant parents to make sure they understand how to navigate the educational system and advocate for their unique students’ needs. “It takes a lot of effort to ensure that everything we’re doing in our classroom campus environment is taking into consideration the pluralistic nature of our student body and the families and parents we serve,” Carter says.
Body politics
Withdrawal of federal funds for DEI initiatives has also impacted the healthcare industry, often leaving providers with their hands tied. Such is the case with Kaiser Permanente (KP), which has a longstanding commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion.
The Trump Administration’s Executive Order 14187, “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” was issued in January, just days after he took office. The order aims to restrict access to gender-affirming care for individuals under 19 years of age and directs federal agencies to potentially withhold funding from institutions that continue to provide this care to minors.
Kaiser Permanente, which is the largest healthcare provider in the Bay Area, was caught in the crosshairs. In July, KP announced it would pause gender affirming surgical treatment beginning Aug. 29.
In a written statement provided by Lena Howland, KP’s senior media relations and public relations representative, the healthcare giant said “Kaiser Permanente was founded on the simple idea that everyone deserves a chance to live a healthy life. For us, health equity is strongly linked to our mission to provide high-quality, affordable health care services and to improve the health of the communities we serve. By being inclusive, we respect the differences among our members and address health disparities as we strive to improve the health of everyone.”
KP’s decision to pause gender affirming surgical treatment for patients under 19 was made “only after significant deliberation and consultation with internal and external experts, including our physicians,” the statement explains, adding that it is “an extremely challenging and stressful time for our patients seeking gender affirming care, as well as for our clinicians whose mission is to care for them.”
The statement notes that KP has been “guided by our mission for more than 80 years, and it will continue to be our North Star. Our longstanding commitments to inclusion, community healthy, evidence-based care, innovation and quality outcomes for all remain unwavering and steadfast.”
KP says it always is actively engaged with policymakers as an advocate for greater health care access, affordability and outcomes for every American. Despite current political pressure, its commitment to DEI remains strong, according to the KP website, and applies to what KP calls its five pillars: care, workplace, marketplace, supplier diversity/community partnerships and diversity and inclusion compliance.
Creeping impact
Anti-DEI policies—and other government directives, such as deportation efforts—are extending into a few surprising areas in the North Bay, potentially impacting federal funding for myriad projects. This has led Sonoma County and the cities of Petaluma and Healdsburg to join in a lawsuit filed by King County in Washington State. The lawsuit accuses federal departments of requiring them to comply with Trump’s anti-DEI agenda or lose funds.
Jeff Kay, Healdsburg city manager, says the suit alleges that the federal government is putting various policy-related edicts into grant agreements that are not really related to those projects. In Healdsburg’s case, it impacts a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant to redo taxiways and runways at the city’s small municipal airport.
“Specifically, in our case, we have received preliminary approval for the grant,” Kay says, but it came with two requirements. “One was that the city must certify it does not operate any programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion that violate any applicable anti-discrimination laws,” Kay explains. And the second requirement was that the city “will cooperate with federal officials in the enforcement of federal law, including cooperating with and not impeding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal offices and components of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the enforcement of federal immigration law.”
Healdsburg has no DEI programs that violate anti-discrimination law, Kay says, but the ICE/DHS requirement is quite sticky.
“That requirement is more challenging because it requires us to navigate state law, which places fairly strict control on cooperation with immigration enforcement,” Kay explains. “Our larger concern and our major motivation for joining this suit is simply because we’re being required to sign off on these policy commitments that have nothing to do with airport runway rehab.”
Kay says the full lawsuit doesn’t just deal with DEI, but a host of current administration policies, such as promoting gender ideology or access to abortion. These issues do not apply to the Healdsburg Airport grant, which is in the neighborhood of $600,000.
“We are just trying to maintain a transportation facility which is really important in times of fire response, then finding ourselves in a position of having the make commitments that are vague to the point of being really concerning,” Kay says.
While the airport grant is fairly small, Kay worries the federal requirements could impact other local transportation projects. “We have one right now which has committed federal funding of over $2 million, so realistically, several million dollars could be at stake.”
A preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs has already been issued in the case, Kay reports, so one of Healdsburg’s motivations in joining the lawsuit is to hopefully gain protection under that injunction, “which would prohibit the federal agencies from making these requirements and allow us to move forward with these projects.” In the meantime, the runway rehab cannot begin.
Alive and well
Despite the defunding threats, attempted roadblocks and political chaos that surround DEI, it appears the movement is still alive and well in the North Bay.
And while wordsmiths are steering clear of the DEI moniker for the time being, “we’re still seeing it included in strategic plans as part of just creating a healthy culture,” Persike concludes.
“Words change over time,” she says. “That’s why the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is always updating the latest terminology every year when they update the dictionary. It’s kind of one of those moments. DEI was extremely visible and that visibility in some areas was misunderstood as a kind of quota system. Now we’re seeing that it’s integrated.”
As they say, you can’t put a genie back in the bottle and you can’t stuff toothpaste back in the tube.
