As I am sure the title of the post may raise some questions that I will unpack, first I have a question of my own:
How do institutions and organizations hope to gain or “add” diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) when the cultures, behaviors, and practices that jeopardize them aren’t subtracted?
I find the mathematics of many diversity, equity, inclusion efforts is off. Specifically, I see spaces believing they have made or stand to make significant strides in improving their climate and culture while removing nothing that harms the cultivation and sustaining of such. Given this, why should we not expect for a space to be just as problematic and hegemonic after a DEI effort has been made? 
Dr. Constance Iloh
My concerns are numerous. If cultures that facilitate inequities and abuses in work environments remain intact, what was the benefit of the DEI effort? If the ecosystem is still a playground for perpetrators of a myriad of forms racism, anti-Blackness, sexism, ableism, etc; what did the diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative do? If some feel just as comfortable engaging in behaviors and activities (such as bullying, mobbing, gatekeeping, and harassment) that push out minoritized employees especially, what has the DEI effort changed?
There is no mistaking that the business that is DEI is a million-dollar industry that costs financially. It is especially a cash cow in the realm of business, academia, and postsecondary learning. At present, there are many organizations and institutions spending significant sums of money on DEI trainings, lectures, programs, certificates, and initiatives. This, however, is not the cost I am referencing.
