Written By William Michael Cunningham
Recommendations to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, supported by the incoming administration’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), rest on a flawed understanding of their purpose, impact, and beneficiaries. Black-owned firms receive a relatively small percentage of the $133 billion in diversity-focused federal contracts, underscoring the need to improve, not eliminate, these programs. Additionally, while it is my belief that agencies like the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) can sustain budget reductions without major harm, such reductions must be implemented with great care given both the agency’s historical challenges and its potential for meaningful impact.
The Misallocation of Diversity Contracts
Critics of DEI programs often believe that their benefits are distributed with the largest share of diversity contracts going to Blacks. This is incorrect. White women, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American firms get the bulk of these contracts. The disproportionate distribution highlights systemic barriers that persist for Black entrepreneurs within the very framework
meant to promote equity. Instead of dismantling DEI programs, efforts should address these structural flaws, ensuring that the intended beneficiaries, including Black businesses, receive a fair share of the resources.Moreover, eliminating these programs entirely would disproportionately harm Black businesses while leaving entrenched inequities among other groups unaddressed. The solution lies in reforming and refining these programs to make them more effective rather than abandoning them altogether.
The Role of the MBDA: A Vital Resource, Even With Constraints:
The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) has historically operated with limited resources and has nonetheless provided valuable support to minority entrepreneurs. While its current impact is constrained by internal personnel issues and a modest budget, the MBDA’s programs have demonstrated the ability to help businesses access capital, build capacity, and create jobs in underserved communities.
Arguments that MBDA’s budget could be eliminated without significantly impacting the US economy overlook the agency’s impact. This work has been critical in promoting economic development in
historically marginalized communities, but underfunding has limited its reach. Further budget reductions would cripple an agency already stretched thin and undermine its ability to fulfill its mission.Evaluating the Broader Impact of DEI Programs
It is also important to address the skepticism surrounding the broader impact of DEI initiatives. Critics often point to the perceived inefficiency of such programs, but the data tells a different story. Federal diversity contracting and small business development initiatives have historically driven economic activity in underrepresented communities, creating jobs and fostering innovation. Even if their implementation is imperfect, the benefits of these programs far outweigh their costs.
Rather than reducing funding or eliminating these programs, policymakers should focus on improving transparency, accountability, and efficiency. Programs must be better aligned with their intended outcomes, ensuring that resources are directed to those who need them most, including Black-owned businesses that continue to face systemic barriers.
A Path Forward: Reform, Not Retrenchment
The debate around diversity programs should not be reduced to a binary choice of maintaining the status quo or eliminating them entirely. Instead, we should focus on refining these initiatives to maximize their impact. This includes:
- Ensuring Equity in Distribution: Reforming federal contracting processes to address disparities in how contracts are allocated and ensuring that Black-owned businesses receive a fair share.
- Strengthening Programs: Rather than reducing, efforts should be made to modernize programs, leveraging data to demonstrate their tangible impact and refine their delivery.
- Increasing Accountability: Implementing mechanisms to monitor the outcomes of initiatives and adjust them to ensure they achieve their intended goals.
- Targeted Investments: Directing resources to communities and businesses that are demonstrably underrepresented or disadvantaged, promoting equity.
The proposed elimination of diversity programs, including cuts to Commerce and Transportation Department budgets, would represent a significant step backward in the fight for economic growth. While it is true that the current allocation of resources requires reform, dismantling these programs altogether would harm the very nation they are designed to help.
Instead of retreating from equity and inclusion, policymakers should prioritize refining and enhancing these programs. With thoughtful reform, these initiatives can become more efficient, equitable, and impactful, driving economic growth and creating opportunities for all Americans. In the pursuit of fiscal efficiency, we must not lose sight of the moral and economic imperative to build a society where everyone, regardless of background, has the opportunity to succeed.
RELATED CONTENT: Apple Joins Costco In Opposing Conservative Meddling In DEI Programs