Etymology

Origin of effort

First recorded in 1480–90; from Middle French, from Old French esfort, esforz, derivative of esforcier “to force” ( es- ex- ¹ + forcier force )

from — Definition of effort. (n.d.). 

~ ~ ~ 

from the National Institute for Workers Rights

Economic Dignity: Making Equal Opportunity Real: How Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts Combat Workplace Discrimination

In his inaugural address on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump declared, “We will forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based.”[1] Subsequently, President Trump issued a series of executive orders aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives within the federal government, major law firms, and the private sector.[2] Notably, Executive Order 14173, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” rescinded longstanding affirmative action requirements for federal contractors and directed agencies to combat what it termed “illegal DEI” policies in the private sector.[3] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) later put out a “technical assistance” document indicating what the federal government views as “illegal DEI”. Though it points to a few workplace practices that could be unlawful, such as restricting employee resource group membership and separating employees by race or gender in trainings the implication is that most diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at the workplace are perfectly legal.[4] Meanwhile, federal agencies are dismantling offices that enforce civil rights and antidiscrimination laws, thereby weakening the government’s ability to protect workers’ rights.[5]

Unfortunately, the Trump Administration’s approach will actually move us further away from a workplace that is “colorblind and merit-based.” The reason is this: women and people of color continue to face significant biases that prevent them from being judged according to their ability to work hard and do the job well. Many diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts are designed to overcome biases. Eliminating these initiatives will allow those biases to operate unchecked and expose organizations to legal risks associated with discrimination claims.

This policy brief examines the current state of workplace discrimination and demonstrates how many diversity, equity and inclusion efforts effectively address these challenges through proven strategies. Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives are not only consistent with the law but are often necessary to ensure compliance with it, as indicated in recent guidance from state attorneys general.[6] Indeed, many diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives emerged as measures[AF1]  to address past discrimination and promote equal opportunity. The retreat from diversity, equity and inclusion from companies misses the salience of the following realities that lawyers representing workers see every day:

• Biases against women, people of color, and others at work persist.
• Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives counteract those biases.
• Taking away such efforts will increase discrimination and liability risk.

Biases against women, people of color, and others continue to persist

Discrimination against women and people of color remains a pervasive issue in the workplace, creating significant barriers to equal opportunity. Despite existing legal protections and social progress, women and people of color still face discrimination at every stage of their employment. There is evidence of discrimination against religious minorities, people of certain ethnic backgrounds, and LGBTQ+ individuals as well.[7] Just last year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recovered nearly $700 million for over 21,000 workers with discrimination claims.[8]

Qualified Black candidates are consistently overlooked.

• At the hiring stage, white applicants receive 36% more callbacks than Black applicants and 24% more callbacks than Latino applicants, a disparity that has persisted largely unchanged for 25 years.[9]
• A  study of 108 major U.S. employers found that resumes with distinctively Black names received fewer employer contacts, despite having similar qualifications, with 21% of companies showing statistically significant discrimination against Black applicants.[10]
• This finding of a penalty for Black applicants corroborates a large body of evidence which compare the success of identical resumes with Black and white names, such as the well-known “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?” study.[11]

Working mothers face discrimination.

• Resumes tend to be treated more favorably if they present a male name.[12]
• Parents who take career breaks for raising children often face discrimination when re-entering the workforce, a problem particularly affecting working mothers.[13]

Women and people of color are less likely to be promoted.

In addition to the discrimination that can take place at the hiring stage, research shows that discrimination against women and people of color happens at other stages in the workplace as well.

• Women, particularly women of color, experience significant pay gaps and underrepresentation in leadership, even when controlling for other relevant factors.[14]
• For every 100 men promoted to manager, only 89 white women and 58 Black women are promoted.[15]
• The share of Asian Americans in the workforce also decreases with greater seniority, as does their share of promotions.[16]
• Black workers are 23% less likely to receive substantial support for advancement.[17]

Gender bias harms women on performance evaluations and promotions.

Objective qualifications cannot explain why women are underrepresented in leadership positions as research indicates that women are promoted less often than men, even when controlling for factors such as education, experience, and hours worked. [18]

• Experimental research indicates that when people hear descriptions of leadership behavior, they are more likely to rate the behavior highly if they are told the person is a man.[19] Women face penalties for displaying qualities associated with leadership, like aggression and taking charge, that are praised in men.
• Women report less access to important assignments that could help them grow professionally than men, and this is particularly so for women of color.[20]
• It is also more difficult for women of color particularly to find mentors or sponsors to help them advance and succeed.[21]
• When reviews occur, managers evaluate workers based on gendered expectations rather than purely on job performance.[22]

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives Counteract Known Biases.

Many diversity, equity, and inclusion programs directly address these documented patterns of discrimination through evidence-based strategies designed to ensure workplace outcomes are determined by merit and free from bias. This is not to say that all diversity, equity and inclusion efforts are effective. For example, the evidence supporting diversity or anti-bias training, particularly if delivered on a one-time basis or in isolation from regular workplace practices, is mixed at best.[23] However, research shows that many diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives increase fairness and opportunity in workplaces.

Broad, skills-based hiring counters existing bias.

In the hiring process, diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives often expand outreach and recruitment efforts to reach qualified diverse candidates.[24] This often means dedicated staff and the involvement of human resources departments.

• Indeed, a recent study of major employers found that employers with more centralized points of contact during the hiring process were less likely to discriminate by not interviewing qualified Black candidates.[25]
• Research shows that after employers began specific efforts at broad-based recruiting, representation in management showed statistically significant increases for white women, Black men and women, Hispanic women, and Asian American men and women.[26]
• Employers with employee resource groups are even more effective at recruiting qualified candidates from diverse backgrounds, as these groups take charge of making sure recruitment happens.[27]
• Furthermore, hiring practices structured to emphasize necessary skills and qualifications, rather than subjective impressions, maximize the chances that selections are fair.[28]

Diversity officers help minimize discriminatory hiring.