EEO/DEI: A Subjective Experience or Performative Integration within the Realities of the American Corporate Landscape?

Prologue: This case study began as a 'soft' examination of EEO/DEI models and functions across international firms consulting on multi-billion transportation infrastructure initiatives in the Northeast megalopolis of the US and globally. The goal was to compare projects here and abroad and how EEO/DEI platforms are used outside of America's factious cultural and polarized political landscapes. Is that dynamic atypical? How do international models differ from USA equal opportunity policy and its applications?  How can transportation infrastructure projects access and integrate these resources for better DEI outcomes; particularly as these initiatives are under attack here at home?

The author hopes to identify outlying performance innovations by a) constructing an empirical framework of DEI and EEO; b) identifying emerging inclusion technologies; and c) exploring international integration of DEI practices for expanded awareness and examples of drivers of DEI resistance in the US. Are there opportunities and synergies that can inform applications within the current project environment? Lastly, we want to cite our own subjective impressions learned from the diverse elements identified.

 Affirmative Action History and Current Tendencies: Nationally (notwithstanding foundational abolitionist movements) for all intent and purpose, DEI programs date to the Civil Rights Movement and its pivotal role "...in accelerating efforts to create more diverse and inclusive workplaces. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed employment discrimination based on race, religion, sex, color and national origin. It also banned segregation in public places, like public schools, libraries and restaurants. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, which works to eliminate employment discrimination."[1]

It has been impressed upon this writer; there is much disconnect regarding the historical waves that morphed into the Civil Rights Act in 1964. I am speaking of the country's 400+ year history of slavery, emancipation, reconstruction and Jim Crow. Since these waves have crested historically as part of US social upheaval - they've informed all manner of Civil Rights, Equal Employment and Affirmative Action, which became the preferred models of promoting equal rights and cultural diversity. These antecedent and often concurrent historical markers afforded us Multi Culturalism, Diversity/Equity/Inclusion and Cultural Intelligence© as evidence and developing epistemologies. These are the knowledge hubs, if you will, that are being dismantled and discouraged on the current American landscape. In spite of these anti-discrimination efforts, progressive accomplishments for equal rights are being dismissed under the most cryptic and enigmatic of banner narratives; one that is categorically unproven - but nationally accepted as valid - the notion of reverse discrimination and the intentional framing of whites as victims.

One of the first significant tests of definitive rules influencing Civil Rights contracting and business development access, employment practice and legal challenge - was the Supreme Court case: City of Richmond v J.A. Croson Company (1989). The subsequent "verdict made it so that any use of race in any legislative policy would have to pass the strictest of scrutiny in order to be deemed constitutional, the Court effectively doomed affirmative action policies and institutionalized color-blind rhetoric (largely comfortable for racial majorities) while rendering color-conscious rhetoric (largely comfortable for racial minorities) to the legal dustbin. In doing so, the Court made dialogue about race between diverse people (but especially amongst policymakers) strained, tense and largely unworkable. Croson institutionalized the practice of racial groups speaking past one another, and racial [and political] majorities bulldozing over racial minorities. By condemning race-conscious language, Croson made it difficult for different races to communicate about, and combat racism. We simply are not all on the same page. This is the called the Croson Effect."[2]

Technically, this ruling striped the ability of litigants to use race as a construct for proving discrimination. Current jurisdictional developments and the climate of American DEI resistance is one basis for business, cultural and political stakeholders to legitimize their current backlash and cause a regurgitation of retrograde policy. When we examine DEI and EEO in these contexts and question the unevenness EEO applications in industry, we are provided an additional canvas to understand the incalcitrant nature of conducting impactful EEO and DEI integration in regressive social, political and business climates. [3]

Burdened by the Crosen effect, we sometimes were at a loss at how to proceed in equity policy while trying to avoid mentioning race for fear of being struck down in court. “Avoidance of race consciousness language gave birth to some frustrated discussions, in which the desire for some form of race conscious policy provision - surrendered to legality." This reassignment (or weaponization) of language from a progressive standpoint, is a political and linguistic tactic to fracture critical analysis and the impact of Civil Rights and EEO supported initiatives. Regressive strategists, prefer regurgitating old cultural wounds across race and gender - toward divisive community outcomes and disintegration. Redundancy of racial and gender tropes, coupled with subliminally targeted messages of kinship and nationalism in social and mainstream media; entertainment and sports commodities; business and academic publications, is a part of this strategic redundancy.

These confluences have allowed and continue to maintain, for social engineering purposes, "an end all be all" cornucopia of excuses for folks to disregard and dismiss - the overall character, justification and implementation of Civil Rights Laws, Affirmative Action and now DEI. All of these 'waves' if you will, have created interesting applications of EEO/DEI regulatory practice across government and business frameworks in the current American corporate environment and in real time, these practices are being dismantled within our academic, business, regulatory and legal environments - to serve 'outlying' corporate and capital interests. [4]

What is EEOC? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against private companies and other private employers for violations of federal law prohibiting employment discrimination. For public employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. The EEOC is responsible for investigating public sector charges before referring them to DOJ for potential litigation. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government’s anti-discrimination employment efforts.

EEO reporting requirements began with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which mandated various Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) reports, including the EEO-4 report, which is required biennially for state and local governments with 100 or more employees. Equal employment opportunity (EEO) categories are a set of characteristics or demographics protected under federal law.  Since 1966, all businesses with over 100 employees have also been legally required to file the Employer Information Report EEO-1 with the EEOC. Federal contractors with 50 or more employees and a contract value of over $50,000 are also required to file EEO4 reports containing mandatory biennial data collection and reporting requirements, applicable to state and local governments. Data is categorized by sex, race/ethnicity, job category and salary band. Aggregated information about large infrastructure project EEO characteristics, help the EEOC understand demographic changes and identify challenges to equal opportunity in employment. 

2025 Executive Order dynamics have confounded the application of EEO/DEI principles in an already charged American culture milieu. It is a policy maze for practitioners at the systemic level - as impacted government, quasi-government NGO’s, secondary/higher education institutions, and all manner of federally contracted domestic and non-profit institutions – attempt to understand and comply with the administration’s orders - as well as organize coordinated challenges to their legality. Specifically, at program levels, the changes have forced legal, Civil Rights and EEO compliance teams to restructure contract language, policy documents, correspondence and how the public is engaged - all to maintain conformity with new regulations, while maintaining the character, integrity and intent of Civil Rights laws.

It is disheartening to see incremental Civil Rights progress dismantled by leveraging political ignorance by portions of the American electorate reigniting long refuted social engineering practices and cultural misconceptions. In contrast, these circumstances create an opportunity to explore the supple milieu of corporate EEO / DEI evidence and experience to conduct forward analysis, and to examine how program management functions might be re-imagined in the throes of overarching political, corporate and social change.

A Sample of DEI Frameworks: Many company cultures emphasize an ‘inclusion lens’ on policies and practices. The Population Health Research Unit of Dalhousie University and the Social Inclusion Reference Group of the Atlantic Region (Health Canada) state, “The Inclusion Lens is designed for use by policy makers, program managers, and community leaders who work in the context of social and economic exclusion, in both the public and non-profit sectors… It provides a method for analyzing both the conditions of exclusion and solutions that promote inclusion. It also provides a way of beginning to plan for inclusion; and a way of being to plan for inclusion.”[5] Policies are designed to ensure opportunities for growth are equally applied; and to celebrate colleague success to attract and retain talent and diverse representation. It seeks to empower, encourage and enable contributions from everyone - and actions its employee engagement survey results. The design also empowers consultants at all levels."[6]

The Monitor Institute by Deloitte assists case study context asserting "issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are often inextricably linked to [societal] challenges… As a team and individually, we are committed to actively integrating DEI considerations into our work and thinking. This means continuously deepening our understanding of historical and current structures that can contribute to these challenges, increasing our capacity as professionals and human beings to recognize and address our unconscious biases, developing approaches to productively engage our clients in thinking about DEI, and intentionally working to increase inclusion and diversity of our own team and leadership. We recognize that this is an ongoing journey and may look different for each individual and/or organization.” [7]

The Historical Foundations of DEI around the world: According to Jeanine D'Alusio, Certified Diversity Executive and Founder of This is DEI, "...diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are often viewed through a U.S.-centric lens, but these principles have evolved worldwide, influenced by unique histories, policies, and cultural contexts. While the civil rights movement in the United States played a pivotal role in shaping workplace diversity policies, countries across Africa, Europe, Asia/India, and Latin America have developed their own approaches to advancing DEI. [8]

Asia grapples with Unique Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Challenges due in part to its rich tapestry of societies, and in recent years has made huge strides towards fostering greater diversity and inclusion. This is the largest and most populous continent and is home to tremendously diverse cultures, languages, and histories. Despite different challenges, positive examples of progress across Asia have been identified. Asia embodies an extraordinary range of ethnicities, religions, and languages. From the Indian subcontinent to Southeast Asia, from East Asia to the Middle East, the continent showcases remarkable diversity. It is essential to recognize and appreciate this complexity by considering each country individually, rather than taking a generic approach towards the continent as a whole. [9]

Specifically, India's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) are foundational principles that Indian organizations increasingly adopt to foster inclusive growth. However, understanding DEI within India’s context requires a close look at the country’s diverse demographics, socioeconomic disparities, and cultural sensitivities. DEI in India encompasses various dimensions. The dimensions include gender, disability, LGBTQIA+, caste, regional differences, and generational diversity. These are all crucial in shaping how organizations build inclusive spaces. According to a 2023 Well-being Programmes India Survey by WTW, DEI initiatives are a part of the social well-being strategies adopted by 71% of Indian organizations. These efforts include diversity training, accessible office designs, gender-neutral communications, and inclusive benefits options. It is a positive indicator of the increased focus on DEI initiatives. However, there are still pressing issues that we must address to move from policy to practice effectively. [10]

South Africa: Post-Apartheid Equity and Inclusion in the Workplace struggles against apartheid led to one of the world’s most progressive DEI policies, with the Employment Equity Act of 1998 aimed at rectifying past injustices. These policies prioritized racial equity in hiring, workplace diversity, and equal opportunities, though debates persist about their long-term impact on economic growth and racial relations, but other data indicates the structural underpinnings of discrimination and racism have not been addressed.

The European Union’s Anti-Discrimination and Workplace Inclusion Laws have taken a legal approach to diversity and inclusion, implementing directives such as the Racial Equality Directive (2000) and the Employment Equality Directive (2000) to combat discrimination in employment. European countries generally focus on broad anti-discrimination protections rather than affirmative action-style initiatives.

Japan’s Slow Shift Toward Gender and Workplace Diversity and Inclusion Efforts have been historically slow due to rigid corporate hierarchies and a homogeneous national identity. However, the Women’s Advancement Act of 2015 and policies aimed at increasing diversity in leadership have pushed companies to prioritize gender equality and support for working mothers.

Brazil's Affirmative Action Policies have expanded its racial quotas in higher education and public-sector employment in an attempt to address systemic racism. These policies aim to increase representation for Afro-Brazilians and Indigenous populations, though critics argue about their effectiveness and implementation. In some parts of the Middle East and Asia, DEI initiatives face resistance due to deeply entrenched social hierarchies, religious traditions, and gender norms.

The Complexities of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI) are exemplified in China, home to 56 recognized ethnic groups, each with its own language, culture and traditions. However, Han Chinese represent over 90% of the population, which can make achieving ethnic diversity in organizations challenging. For companies operating in China, fostering inclusivity for ethnic minorities remains a relatively underexplored area of DEI. [11]

U.S. Diversity Concepts May Not Apply: While multinational corporations often introduce global DEI policies, they must adapt them to align with local cultural expectations and this cursory look at the global constellation of DEI and affirmative action initiatives across the globe show that while different countries take varying approaches, the core goal remains the same: creating fair, diverse, and inclusive workplaces. International efforts suggest that legal protections matter, but cultural shifts take time; even with strong anti-discrimination laws, implicit bias and societal norms still create barriers to true inclusion. Further, anecdotal data implies that affirmative action remains a global debate. While some nations successfully implement quota systems, others resist race- and gender-based hiring initiatives. Multinational corporations influence global DEI policies. As companies expand internationally, they introduce DEI strategies that shape workplace culture, though they must navigate the regional nuances.

Don Dowling, an attorney with Littler in New York City, suggested that American-style DE&I goals often make little sense overseas, particularly in racially homogenous countries. Many U.S.-based employers, however, try in vain to reach those goals in distant locations, he said. "Speaking internationally, you have to change the definition if you're going to have it at all," he said, noting that companies could adapt their initiatives to account for ethnic differences within some other countries. If you want to reflect the local demographics you have to unhook the American concepts of Black and white and look at what's important locally, but too often companies don't actually do that and track irrelevant, exported U.S. metrics instead, Dowling said. U.S. headquarters often create friction when they try to roll out DE&I in places with laws, such as data privacy measures, that limit it, according to Dowling. Global companies should slow down and adapt their DE&I initiatives to different countries, he recommended. "I'm suggesting that they localize if they're serious about diversity," he said. "I suggest that they look at the local demographics."[12]

DEI Markers of the Regional and National Transportation Infrastructure: Given this expansive context, what are the best practices regarding DEI and transportation-based infrastructure within the United States? The Transportation Research Board notes that "investments in roadways have historically focused on safety, mobility, and system preservation. Over time, the understanding of the impacts of roadway decisions has matured, and other factors such as socioeconomic impact, sustainability, (human environment) accountability, transparency, and innovation have increased importance in the decision-making process."[13]   

Historically, since the establishment of the EEOC in 1965 via an act of Congress to enforce the Civil Rights Act, State departments of transportation (DOTs) and other agencies have sought to address diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in transportation decisions, including those related to asset management; albeit some more intentionally than others. It was understood for example, that "the disparate allocation of resources in the maintenance or replacement of critical assets can result in inequitable transportation system performance and accessibility outcomes that can be more harmful to underserved communities with fewer resources available to meet daily transportation needs. DEI recognizes intersectional (race, gender, socioeconomic, disabilities etc.) differences within communities and among different communities. Integrating DEI indicators into transportation asset management (TAM) can help state DOTs and other agencies to improve the impact of TAM investment decisions, especially to underserved communities. Research is needed to support practitioners seeking to integrate DEI into TAM processes and decision-making. New research is targeting guides with supporting resources for agencies to identify, analyze, and integrate DEI outcomes in TAM analysis and decision-making to improve TAM outcomes for underserved communities."[14]

Firms forming a nexus in the writer's consultant network include:

• Mace Group Americas' company culture emphasizes an ‘inclusion lens’ on policies and practices. Paraphrasing, Mace Way policies are designed to ensure opportunities for growth are equally applied; and to celebrate colleague success attracting and retaining talent and diverse representation. It seeks to empower, encourage and enable contributions from everyone - and responsively actions its employee engagement survey results. The design is to empower consultants at all levels." Its stated DEI commitment has remained the same in light of Executive Orders promulgated by the U.S. President. The umbrella Mace Group is a privately owned business that has grown organically across four global hubs in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, the Americas and Asia Pacific. They provide construction and delivery consulting services for world-leading transportation, pharmaceutical, science, and technology companies. Additionally, Mace Security International, Inc. is a manufacturer and provider of personal safety and security products under the Mace® Brand.

• Parsons, a major federal contractor, all DEI material was apparently off its website by Jan. 29, with the statement about the matter posted Feb. 2 at the bottom of its website homepage. 'To comply with the executive order and guidance from federal agencies, the company said it would ‘no longer have goals or incentives based on demographic representation and has removed all DEI pages and websites as of January 2025.’ The firm also said it ‘will no longer participate in DEI-related programming going forward.’  The Parsons' model of DEI delivery was scrapped, within days of President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive orders eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Parsons quietly posted a statement on its website saying the company was shelving its award-winning program.  The company did not announce the change with a press release. When asked about DEI during the first quarter, a spokesman emailed that Parsons "is required to comply with federal mandates related to DEI’ and has ‘taken appropriate steps to remain compliant with the [federal] directive.’  Parsons, which is heavily dependent on federal government programs, was possibly among the first large engineering and construction contractors to roll back DEI programs that the administration is attacking as unconstitutional and illegal forms of discrimination.”  Up until this action Parsons maintained an award-winning model of DEI delivery that served as one industry standard. [15]

• Arcadis NV is a global design, engineering and management consulting company based in the Zuidas, Amsterdam, Netherlands. It currently operates in more than 350 offices in 40 countries. Since 1990, the company has largely expanded itself via a series of acquisitions and mergers, which have allowed it to both expand its presence in existing markets as well as to enter new ones. It performs design and consultancy services on a wide variety of undertakings. Arcadis (either directly or via subsidiaries) inclusive of the HTP, has been involved in several high-profile construction projects, including London City Airport and the A2 motorway.  Its Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging Policy states, “…at Arcadis, we are committed to improving quality of life for all by promoting a People First work environment. Our people are fundamental to our success - without them, there is no business.  By fostering an inclusive, human-centric, accountable, and sustainable workplace we want to ensure everybody feels they belong and can succeed at Arcadis, where differences among Arcadians are recognized, valued and celebrated. The purpose of this Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) Policy is to define Arcadis' commitment to DEIB and provide a roadmap for us to fulfil it. We strive to work and collaborate with clients, suppliers, joint venture partners and their supply chains, ecosystem partners, industry bodies and other third-party agents who demonstrate the spirit of this policy."

These type of overarching policies and associated guidelines include respecting the dignity and diversity of all individuals, including colleagues and any other individuals they might encounter during the course of their engagement with a firm. Employees are encouraged to create inclusive environments that are free from discrimination, harassment, and bullying, focusing on deliberate inclusion and being more intentional with actions to drive diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging.

Deconstructing Bias and Instituting Multiplier Effects of Inclusion: There is another side of the inclusion equation in the executive corporate space. The passive aggressive cruelty is polite, word-perfect, and always - performance-ready. It is observed in the smallest moments... When coworkers suggest you're on the team because of affirmative action or DEI... or experiencing dismissiveness in meetings when seeking to pertinently contribute to dialogue... or and seemingly intentional disregard of behavioral standards specifically asked of coworkers when engaging you. Old prejudices and aggression have been replaced by something colder and far more difficult to pinpoint... indifference dressed as professionalism but highly charged with micro aggression and unmitigated servings of bias in disguise.

The messaging is polished, the reality indifferent. And that’s the real thread in this unfolding... whether it’s cubicle or the glass-paneled office, the board room, the outcomes tend to be the same. Corporate culture rewards how empathy and inclusion LOOKS - not how it’s lived and applied to office systems and practice of policy. Communications/media packages stress control as social composure and compliance. Calmness is weaponized and called leadership. And the scariest part is that, on paper, they look perfect; like the words used to describe DEI in this case study. We speak about “emotional intelligence” as a hedge against cultural and racial enmity that simmers below the surface, while our teams quietly burn down as embers of micro aggressions simmer under them.

"Part of this comes from fear, a system that teaches employees to be grateful even for mistreatment, to confuse survival with loyalty. We’re told to endure because 'at least we have jobs.' Decency has become optional, compassion a luxury. Yet the leaders obsess over optics: empathy as PR, humility as brand strategy. The culture is shifting however, and younger teams are asking questions that make polished bosses deeply uncomfortable. They expect boundaries, demand respect, and unnervingly - demonstrate their humanity in behaviors earlier generations were taught to apologize for. They’re refusing to confuse fear with discipline. And slowly, that’s exposing what the rest of us have known for years: that leadership built on detachment isn’t strength. It’s avoidance." [16]

In the beginning of this consultant's journey - even before accepting the assignment, I posed this question to myself - How does one establish and implement the scope of federally mandated Equal Opportunity policies (and prescribed guidance toward impactful outcomes) - for a project and its regional footprint - in a climate of overt and covert DEI resistance? (March 2024). To this end, almost two years later, the President's Executive orders - 11246 and 14173 dated Feb '25, have charged an already toxic social climate that convolutes most discussions with weaponized rhetoric and a persistent, pernicious resistance by sectors of the civilian, legislative and business communities. This is coupled with legal and disadvantaged entity corporate responses seeking to remain relevant in the many litigations extending from the quicksand that has been unleashed by our government.  So ironically, it seems that I asked the right question.

We didn't anticipate identifying different standards of behavior within the ethos of Company and Client; but to a reserved degree, we have - and it is hoped that the definitive barriers identified above will engender transformational thinking around notions of DEI and applications within the EEO context, to assist in dissolving challenges that potentially, can be categorized as implicit or unconscious bias in the workplace.

Relational DEI: Why Trust, Empathy, and Accountability Are Essential for Sustainable DEI: "At the heart of Relational DEI lies a transformative idea: lasting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts are built on relationships, not just policies. While traditional DEI initiatives often focus on compliance and metrics, they can fall short without a strong foundation of trust, empathy, and accountability. These three principles create the conditions for meaningful, long-term cultural change in workplaces and communities." Dr. Tony Byers, author of the Multiplier Effect of Inclusion (MEI) summarizes these three principles:  

• Trust, he states, is the foundation of an inclusive workplace culture and that DEI efforts that don't recognize and reinforce this core foundation find that employees remain disengaged, skeptical, or fearful of speaking up. "For DEI to thrive, organizations must build psychological safety and demonstrate a real commitment to inclusion through transparency or clearly communicating DEI goals, progress, and challenges; consistency and follow through on commitments, even when no one is watching; and creating safe spaces for dialogue to encourage open, judgment-free conversations about diversity and inclusion. When trust is present, employees feel valued and included, making workplace DEI programs more impactful.

• Dr. Byers also emphasizes empathy as foundational key to overcoming DEI resistance and building equity. Empathy in DEI helps bridge divides, particularly when people feel resistant or defensive about inclusion efforts. To create a workplace culture rooted in empathy, organizations must: listen without judgment or learning to approach conversations with curiosity rather than defensiveness; recognize different lived experiences or understanding that people’s perspectives on DEI are shaped by personal history and identity; and lastly, encourage storytelling - personal stories humanize DEI efforts and foster connection. These elements, behaviorally integrate empathy into groups and organizations and therefore transform DEI from a corporate initiative into a shared human experience, helping drive real cultural change.

• In MEI, Byers explains that "DEI efforts often fail when there’s no clear accountability structure in place. But accountability doesn’t mean blame—it means commitment to continuous learning and action. He argues that strong DEI accountability frameworks include the following core elements: personal responsibility encouraging employees and leaders to reflect on their own biases and behaviors; collective commitment or holding each other accountable for fostering an inclusive workplace; and data-driven DEI Strategies that track progress through employee feedback, representation metrics and engagement surveys. "With accountability, DEI shifts from a theoretical concept to a sustainable, results-driven practice" [17]

A Word on Bias: The question of how implicit bias matters for DEI is examined in the literature by Bertram Gawronski at the University of Texas at Austin in “Implicit Bias: What is it and how does it Matter for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion?”[18]  He concludes, “the answer to this question is: it depends on what is meant with implicit bias. On the one hand, it is conceivable that people can behave in a biased manner without being aware that their behavior is biased. Such instances of unconscious bias may arise from biased interpretations of ambiguous information and biased weighting of mixed information, which can [for example] contribute to discrimination in policing, hiring and promotion, medical decision-making, and legal sentencing among many others.  However, evidence for unawareness in the relevant studies is scarce and the boundary conditions and properties of unconscious bias are largely unknown – primarily due to a lack of research on these questions. On the other hand, the enormous body of research with indirect measures raises doubts about whether unintentional bias on indirect measures has any unique significance for understanding discriminatory behavior. Thus, while unconscious bias is an understudied but potentially significant obstacle to DEI, the widely presumed relevance of bias on indirect measures seems questionable, if there is any at all. [19]

Gawronski continues, “In moving forward, researchers, practitioners, and educators might consider the following list of five recommendations based on the current analysis:

1. Unconscious bias should not be equated with bias on indirect measures, and vice versa.

2. Unconscious bias should be explained with the known mechanisms of biased interpretation and bias weighting, and the significance of the two mechanisms for discrimination in real-world contexts.

3. To avoid confusion about the difference between unconscious bias and bias on indirect measures, references to the IAT (implicit association test) and other indirect measures should be avoided when explaining unconscious bias.

4. Interventions that aim to increase DEI by tackling unconscious bias should be based on scientific evidence that directly speaks to unconscious bias.

5. To obtain a solid empirical basis for the development of such interventions, researchers should re-allocate resources from studying bias on indirect measures to studying actual instances of unconscious bias. [20]

Gawronski's observations allow insight into thinking about bias and the inherent dismissiveness many thought analysts and policy makers bring to their social constructs.  Categorically parsing out different manifestations of conscious and unconscious bias is a reasonable approach to identifying intentional and unintentional behaviors. However, relegating its identification to direct or indirect measures almost seems slight-of-hand, 'three card molly' if you will. The identification of unconscious bias in real time, is an outgrowth, a fractal extension if you will, of value systems rooted in the psychological and behavioral makeup of the perceived perpetrator - individual or corporate entity. The bifurcation of identified methods, while on the surface is very practical - appears an intellectual attempt to obfuscate individual and collective responsibility for the internalization of tropes or ideas, specifically choices, that participants make to maintain, testify or feign biased actions, conscious or unconscious. For this writer, an effort to academically avoid accountability and to kick the 'can of reckoning' with cultural indiscretion, down the road; a bias - if you will. How sway...

The next part of the case study will integrate questions raised at the outset of this narrative and our framing of the DEI/EEO socio-political landscape. Specifically, these were: a) Is America's factious cultural and polarized political dynamic atypical? b) How do international models differ from USA equal opportunity policy applications? c) How can transportation infrastructure projects access and integrate resources for better DEI outcomes here at home? d) What synergistic opportunities exist that can inform applications within the current project environment that is mitigating contractor compliance in light of conflicting Executive Orders and uneven federal guidance?

__________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964..

[2] The Croson Effect & Its Remedies: Overcoming Racial Incompetence in Policy and People - Journal of Law and Social Policy

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Population and Health Research Branch, Atlantic Region, An Inclusion Lens Workbook for Looking at Social and Economic Exclusion and Inclusion, Malcolm Shookner, Population Health Research Unit, Dalhousie University and Social Inclusion Reference Group, Atlantic Region, June 2002.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Corporate Social Impact Consulting – Monitor Institute by Deloitte | Deloitte US, How companies are successfully building sustainability and inclusivity into the heart of their business practices.

[8] https://www.thisisdei.com/blog/the-core-principles-of-relational-dei-trust-empathy-and-accountability

[9] https://globaldiversitypractice.com/understanding-dei-in-asia/

[10] The DEI landscape in India: Progress, challenges, and solutions

[11] https://hortoninternational.com, The Complexities of DEI Practices in Modern China   

[12] http://dowling.global/

[13] Transportation Asset Management Guide-A Focus on Implementation. Executive Summary

[14] Ibid.

[15] Parsons Corp. Quietly Cut Its Award-Winning DEI Program | Engineering News-Record

[16] Multiplier Effects of Inclusion, Dr. Tony Byers, Ph.D., 2021, https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/legal/multiplier-effect-diversity-inclusion/

[17] Ibid.

[18] (PDF) Implicit Bias: What Is It and How Does It Matter for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion? Bertram Gawronski, University of Texas at Austin. Implicit Bias: What is it and how does it Matter for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion?

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.