The largest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action/DEI are white women, followed by Hispanic groups, Asians coming in third, disabled individuals fourth, veterans fifth, and finally, the group that receives the least amount of DEI support; that’s right, you guessed it, Black Americans. Ironically, it was Black Americans sacrificing their blood, sweat and tears fighting tooth and nail for an end to racial discrimination whilst facing racist police, members of the Klan, white nationalist governors, and ordinary white folk who did not want to see an end to Jim Crow Segregation. So, how come Black Americans are the least likely to receive DEI benefits? And even more confounding, why is it that all DEI haters single out Black Americans when DEI is criticized? The backlash against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives by President Trump has taken on an alarming response, exposing a far-right agenda to strike a fatal blow in the heart of Black America to end once and for all the upward social mobility of Africans in America. This cold and calculating obstruction to DEI initiatives echoes the historical patterns of white-sponsored terror, which often sought to undermine and dismantle Black advancement during pivotal moments of racial progress.

 Throughout American history, white supremacist groups have consistently sought to undermine Black progress through violent massacres, economic sabotage, and systemic policies designed to dismantle Black independence and advancement. From the Reconstruction Era to the present day, Black communities have been targeted simply for their resilience and success. The Colfax Massacre of 1873 in Louisiana exemplifies this pattern, where white mobs overthrew a legally elected Reconstruction government and murdered over 150 Black residents, ensuring white dominance in political power. Similarly, in Wilmington, North Carolina (1898), white supremacists staged the only successful coup d’état in U.S. history, violently overthrowing the multiracial government, murdering at least 60 Black residents, and expelling hundreds from the city. These acts of racial terrorism were not isolated incidents but rather strategic efforts to erase Black political and economic power.

 By the early 20th century, mass killings of Black communities escalated further in response to Black economic prosperity and self-sufficiency. The Slocum Massacre of 1910 in Texas saw white mobs murdering dozens of Black residents after rumors circulated about Black success and property ownership. The Elaine Massacre (1919) in Arkansas reinforced the same agenda, where Black sharecroppers organizing for fair wages were falsely accused of inciting rebellion. At least 200 Black men, women, and children were slaughtered while federal troops and white vigilantes terrorized the area. That same year, during the “Red Summer” of 1919, violent anti-Black riots erupted across the country as white supremacists attacked Black communities that had grown economically and politically influential.

 One of the most infamous examples of white retaliation against Black progress occurred during the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 in Oklahoma. Known as “Black Wall Street,” the Greenwood District of Tulsa was a flourishing hub of Black-owned businesses and wealth. White mobs, many deputized by local authorities, looted and burned the district to the ground, killing an estimated 100–300 Black residents and leaving over 10,000 people homeless.

These historical massacres uncannily align with the current efforts of the MAGA, Proud Boys, and the new administration to undermine Black progress through systemic means. The dismantling of affirmative action policies in college admissions, the rise of anti-DEI rhetoric, and the vilification of racial equity initiatives are merely new forms of the same age-old resistance to Black advancement. White nationalist groups, with support from certain model minority factions, seek to reclaim power by reversing racial progress, just as they did through lynchings, riots, and economic sabotage in the past. The America of old that stood for justice and equality for all is now a country of hate and lawlessness, as members of Congress defy the UN and ICC in support of war criminals like Benjamin Netanyahu. The modern backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion policies must be understood within this broader historical context—an ongoing effort to preserve white dominance by obstructing Black mobility at all costs. Whether through violent massacres or legislative rollbacks, the goal has always been the same: to maintain the racist racialized narrative of white superiority at the expense of Black lives.

The birth of the KKK, a reaction to Black advancement:

 The first surge of white-sponsored terrorism against Black advancement occurred during the Reconstruction era (as stated earlier) (1865–1877) in the United States, a critical period following the Civil War, during which Black Americans experienced unprecedented opportunities for social mobility. After the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which abolished slavery, granted citizenship, and provided voting rights to Black men, many African Americans rose to positions of prominence at both the state and federal levels. By 1870, nearly 2,000 Black men held public office across the South, including U.S. senators like Hiram Rhodes Revels of Mississippi, the first Black man to serve in Congress, and Joseph Rainey of South Carolina, the first Black representative in the U.S. House.

 This period of political and social progress was met with fierce resistance from the white South, who sought to maintain racial hierarchies through violence and intimidation. In 1865, former Confederate soldiers founded the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in Pulaski, Tennessee. The Klan rapidly evolved into a violent terrorist organization, using tactics such as lynching, arson, and voter intimidation to suppress Black advancement. For example, the Colfax Massacre of 1873 in Louisiana saw white supremacists slaughter approximately 150 Black men who were defending a courthouse and their right to vote. Similarly, in 1871, President Ulysses S. Grant had to invoke the Ku Klux Klan Act to curb Klan violence, deploying federal troops to protect Black citizens, though these efforts ultimately fell short.

 The Klan’s campaign of terror was bolstered by state-sanctioned support, as many local governments turned a blind eye or even participated in racial violence. This systematic suppression of Black political power culminated in the end of Reconstruction in 1877, when federal troops withdrew from the South as part of the Compromise of 1877. This withdrawal allowed white supremacist groups to regain control, ushering in the era of Jim Crow laws that codified racial segregation and disenfranchised Black Americans for nearly a century. The Reconstruction era’s promise of Black independence and social mobility was violently dismantled, and the KKK’s actions laid the groundwork for future surges of white-sponsored terrorism against Black progress. This period highlights the enduring pattern of systemic efforts to stifle Black advancement through violence, fear, and institutional complicity.

The Tulsa Race Massacre and Contemporary DEI Attacks: Historical Parallels

 Though Black Americans receive the least support from DEI initiatives, the new administration and Project 2025 are clearly designed to undermine Black wealth and progress. The Whitehouse strategically scapegoats DEI to demonize the initiative, and in doing so, he paves the way to rob African Americans and other minority groups of their rights to participate fully in society. This is a classic authoritarian tactic—dictators manufacture enemies to stoke fear and justify repression. In 1984, for example, the Party used Emmanuel Goldstein as a scapegoat to unify the masses under a fabricated threat. Similarly, blaming DEI serves as a distraction while dismantling civil rights. Yet, the media, the Senate, Congress, and even the Supreme Court allow The Executive Branch to push this agenda without meaningful challenge, enabling a broader assault on democracy itself.

 DEI is a modern vehicle for fostering racial equity, opening pathways for underrepresented groups who have been historically marginalized, particularly Black individuals, to thrive in education, employment, and leadership. However, as with Black Wall Street, the visible success of these efforts has provoked resistance from those who perceive such progress as a threat to their power. The President’s overt denunciation of DEI, coupled with legislative attacks on affirmative action and corporate diversity policies, reflects a deliberate strategy to undermine Black advancement by erasing the systems that enable it. Ironically, this initiative will also impact white women and other non-white groups, such as the Asian and Hispanic communities, who are the primary beneficiaries of DEI. Thus, an effort to cripple the Black community will also cripple other ethnicities and white women. What MAGA forgets is that as a racially complex America evolves, so do the existing communities and groups that inhabit the landscape, and it becomes more difficult to racially discriminate against one group of people in favor of others. Our destinies are more intertwined than we can imagine, and a sly partisan or racially biased attack on one particular group in the country will have a domino effect, impacting other communities in the process.

The “Meritocracy” Argument in Bad Faith

 Whitehouse attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives were not driven by a genuine commitment to meritocracy but rather by a strategic effort to dismantle programs that promote fairness while simultaneously appointing underqualified individuals to high-level government positions. The President frequently railed against DEI, claiming that it undermined merit-based selection, yet his own administration blatantly disregarded qualifications in favor of political loyalty and ideological extremism. As the Los Angeles Times reported, several presidential nominees—such as Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—lacked substantive experience for their assigned roles, instead being chosen based on allegiance rather than competence. This contradiction exposes Trump’s heinous misuse of DEI as a scapegoat: while decrying it as a system that supposedly elevates the undeserving, he actively appointed individuals with dubious qualifications over far more experienced candidates. His administration’s actions reveal that the fight against DEI was never about ensuring excellence or fairness but rather maintaining existing racial and economic hierarchies while consolidating power among loyalists. By weaponizing anti-DEI rhetoric, Trump effectively created a double standard—rejecting the expansion of opportunities for marginalized communities while ushering in his cadre of unqualified appointees, proving that his crusade against DEI was nothing more than a tool to justify exclusion and political patronage.

 The selective application of the meritocracy argument becomes even more evident when examining efforts to dismantle affirmative action in higher education. The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to strike down affirmative action policies has emboldened critics of DEI to frame equity-based practices as inherently unfair. Yet, studies have shown that affirmative action and similar policies foster more equitable outcomes without compromising academic or professional standards. This disingenuous use of meritocracy to attack DEI mirrors the historical pattern of using seemingly neutral justifications—such as “law and order” rhetoric during the Civil Rights Movement—to perpetuate systemic oppression.

 The Role of Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Intersectionality in DEI

 To combat the resurgence of anti-DEI sentiment, it is essential to address the complex intersections of race, class, and other forms of marginalization. In the United States, institutions such as Yale and Binghamton have introduced tools like Landscape and Adversity Scores, which incorporate socioeconomic status into admissions decisions. These tools represent a shift toward acknowledging the structural barriers that limit social mobility for underrepresented groups. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) has proposed adding “class” as a protected characteristic under anti-discrimination laws, recognizing that socioeconomic inequality often intersects with racial and gender disparities.

 However, these efforts must not replace race-conscious policies but rather complement them. Leading with social mobility while integrating intersectional frameworks ensures that progress in one area does not come at the expense of others. DEI initiatives must measure outcomes across multiple dimensions to safeguard against unintended disparities, particularly for Black individuals who face unique and compounding forms of discrimination.

 DEI as a Vehicle for Social Change

 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are not merely corporate or educational policies—they are transformative tools for addressing systemic inequities and fostering social mobility. The evidence is clear: Organizations prioritizing diverse talent and equitable practices are more innovative, successful, and better equipped to navigate complex challenges. Yet, the backlash against DEI threatens to undermine these gains, perpetuating a cycle of exclusion and marginalization.

 To counter this threat, DEI advocates must build more substantial evidence-based cases for its benefits, highlighting the tangible outcomes of equity-driven policies. This includes documenting how diverse teams outperform homogenous ones and showcasing the societal benefits of greater inclusivity. Additionally, DEI practitioners must remain vigilant against efforts to dilute or co-opt the movement, ensuring that equity remains at the forefront of their work.

 Conclusion: Resisting the Resurgence of White-Sponsored Terrorism

 The attacks on DEI are not isolated incidents but rather part of a broader pattern of resistance to Black social mobility that has deep historical roots. From the Tulsa Race Massacre to the dismantling of Affirmative Action, these efforts reflect a concerted attempt to preserve white dominance by disrupting progress in racial equity. By recognizing and addressing these threats, DEI advocates can continue to advance social change, ensuring that the promise of equity and inclusion becomes a reality for all. Moreover, carefully analyzing who should benefit from DEI programs must be assessed more rigorously. The fact that African Americans benefit the least from DEI programs compared to white women, Hispanics, and Asians is testimony to the racial hierarchical structures that are now in place as more recent minority groups have begun to exploit Affirmative Action programs for the benefit of their communities, whilst strategically displacing Black Americans.

 This resurgence of white-sponsored targeted attacks on the anti-racist system established during and after the Civil Rights movement is not inevitable. Through collective action, evidence-based advocacy, and a commitment to intersectional equity, the DEI movement can withstand these challenges and pave the way for a more just and equitable society.