Published: February 2026
In February 2026, U.S. Rep. Andy Barr (R‑KY) released a television ad attacking diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In the ad he asks viewers, "You know what DEI really stands for? Dumb, Evil, Indoctrination," then declares he will end this "trash" and insists "it's not a sin to be white, it's not against the law to be male, and it shouldn't be disqualifying to be a Christian." The rhetoric portrays DEI as a threat to white, male and Christian Americans, implying that programs designed to broaden opportunities are somehow harmful or discriminatory.
But beyond the soundbite, the ad raises deeper questions about justice and the kind of future we want to build as a society. Here are some facts worth considering—and questions readers might ask themselves when evaluating Barr's message.
Unemployment and economic disparity
According to data from late 2025, Black workers faced an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent, nearly double the 3.8 percent rate for white workers. When the labor market weakens, Black workers are typically the first fired and last hired. Income disparities follow suit: the median income for Black households in 2024 was $56,020, compared with $88,010 for white households, a gap of more than 36 percent. Black workers earn less than white workers in almost every major industry.
These numbers aren't just statistics—each percentage point represents families striving to stay afloat, children who may lack access to quality education, and communities with fewer opportunities. How do these disparities reflect on claims that DEI is unnecessary or "evil"? If DEI programs attempt to address injustice and build a better future by leveling an uneven playing field, is it accurate to paint them as harmful?
Education gaps and opportunity
Education is a key driver of economic mobility, yet only 39 percent of Black adults in the United States have attained an associate degree or higher, compared with 52.9 percent of white adults. Lower educational attainment limits access to high‑paying jobs and career advancement. What happens to opportunity when fewer people can access higher education? Without targeted support to help those who have been historically excluded from colleges and universities, are we perpetuating these disparities rather than solving them?
Contradictory voting record
Barr's campaign frames him as the anti‑DEI candidate, yet in 2019 he voted with 225 Democrats for H.R. 5084, the Improving Corporate Governance Through Diversity Act, which required publicly traded companies to disclose the racial, ethnic and gender composition of their leadership. The measure aimed to increase transparency around diversity in corporate leadership (House Vote 630, 2019). If DEI is so "evil," why support legislation that encourages it? Was his vote a mistake, or is his current stance a political calculation designed to energize a particular base?
Questions for reflection
Rather than accept campaign slogans at face value, it may be more productive to ask thoughtful questions:
- What exactly is "evil" about efforts to achieve justice and build a better future by reducing unemployment and income gaps? When Black unemployment is nearly twice that of white unemployment, why is it wrong to build programs that aim to remedy injustice and create a more hopeful future?
- Does supporting DEI mean punishing white, male or Christian Americans? No credible DEI initiative suggests that any identity is sinful. Are claims of persecution distractions from the real issues of inequality and access?
- How should we build a better future and address inequities without DEI? If we dismantle DEI, what tools will remain to tackle the structural causes of economic and educational disparities? Who will develop and implement solutions if our leaders dismiss the very programs designed to help?
- Who benefits when we oppose transparency? Barr previously voted for corporate diversity reporting. If we abandon those measures now, who gains? Those already in power or the communities facing barriers to advancement?
A call for honest dialogue
Barr's ad may appeal to frustrations with "wokeness," but the real issues of justice and building a better future demand more than slogans. It's not a sin to be white, male or Christian—nor is it a sin to be Black, female or non‑Christian. The question is whether our society will work toward a more just and equitable future for everyone or allow persistent inequities to remain unaddressed. By asking ourselves hard questions and looking at the facts, we can move beyond culture‑war rhetoric toward genuine solutions that uplift everyone.
And one final, personal query: regardless of your own religious beliefs — or taking a moment to reflect on them — what would be the right thing to do? Many faith traditions emphasize justice, compassion and uplifting the marginalized. How might those principles guide your view of programs aimed at reducing inequality? Sitting with that question can help bring the conversation back to shared values and moral clarity.