Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs have significantly reshaped the arts industry. They gained prominence in the late 20th and early 21st centuries to address historical inequities. These initiatives led to grants supporting underrepresented artists and efforts to diversify galleries, museums, and leadership roles in an industry historically dominated by a narrow demographic. The conversation shifts as the current administration rolls back DEI funding and programs. Some argue that if DEI worked, maybe it’s time to remove the training wheels—perhaps diversity is now embedded in the system and no longer needs a push. Others believe this is an abrupt and damaging reversal, pulling the plug before the work is indeed done.
So, which is it?
DEI programs weren’t about favoritism; they were about addressing a systemic imbalance. The art world—like many industries—has long been exclusionary. Progress has been made, but is it enough to stand on its own?
Federal DEI policy changes are already affecting institutions that rely on government funding for the arts. Institutions like the National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian Institution have discontinued several programs supporting diversity and equity following the administration’s executive order. Artworks celebrating diverse histories and perspectives have reportedly been quietly removed from federal buildings. Is this rollback inherently discriminatory, or is it simply a shift in policy? If it’s not discriminatory, why does the perception persist that it disproportionately affects marginalized groups? Even broader concerns loom as many artists, organizations, and museums depend on federal funding.
Supporters of the rollback argue that mandated programs can sometimes create a checkbox mentality—where institutions meet diversity quotas without making meaningful change. A 2022 report by the Harvard Business Review found that many corporate DEI programs failed to create lasting impact, with some organizations treating them as performative measures rather than substantive cultural shifts. They suggest that truly inclusive institutions should no longer need DEI mandates if they’ve internalized these values.
On the other hand, critics of the dismantling argue that without structured support, the art world risks reverting to its old patterns. Systemic change doesn’t happen overnight, and removing these programs too soon could undo years of progress. They point out that representation in leadership positions and high-end art markets still tilts heavily in one direction. Additionally, DEI initiatives extend beyond representation; they encompass accessibility, ensuring compliance with ADA standards, and making the arts more available to all.
While larger institutions that rely on federal funding may feel pressure to comply with new restrictions, independent galleries and artist-run spaces remain resilient. These spaces have always been the backbone of the art world, nurturing emerging talent and providing platforms for artists who may never make it into major institutions—with or without DEI programs.
This moment underscores the importance of supporting local galleries and independent art spaces. Investing in these spaces ensures that diverse talent continues to thrive, regardless of shifting federal policies. Without them, the ecosystem feeding into larger institutions would suffer, reducing opportunities for new and diverse voices. While policies shift at the federal level, smaller galleries can continue shaping the art world on their terms, ensuring that creativity, not politics, dictates what gets shown and celebrated.
So, here’s the challenge: If DEI programs are still necessary, how do we ensure they serve as stepping stones rather than permanent crutches? And if it’s time to remove them, how do we prevent regression?
The art world has always pushed boundaries and challenged norms, reflecting evolving industry dynamics and broader trends. Maybe this moment is another call to action—an opportunity to prove that diversity isn’t just a program but an unshakable foundation. As the ancient Persian adage reminds us, "This too shall pass", so in the meantime we must continue to evolve as we always have — growing, creating, and pushing forward.
We'd be interested to hear your views on this topic. Do you think we're ready for the training wheels to come off, or is it too soon and why? Let's discuss it in the comments below!
An interesting article, insightful and yet challenging. My view is that anything artificially created will draw an artificial response. Take those training wheels off and let's see what happens. Pre-empt nothing and let the wind blow where it wills!
While I hold a nuanced opinion of DEI and rollbacks as it pertains to certain sectors I am a little excited for the rollback with regard to art.
Art is about expression, the rollback sparks my curiosity as to what artists will come up with.
As children we drew because we wanted to mimic the illustrations of our favorite comic creators or Dr. Suess with no regard for the capitalistic principles involved. We loved to BE Creative, push boundaries, develop and share new ideas. Once money or funding gets involved is the vision one creates still a vision of thier own or is it a work to "check the boxes" to get placement or gain favor?
There was no government…
Testing progress is one thing, but the deliberate removal of diverse artwork and exhibitions by non-white artists feels like an intentional erasure rather than just a budgetary decision. It’s not just about cutting programs—it’s about controlling narratives and whose voices get heard. Rolling back DEI efforts this soon suggests that the goal was never long-term change but rather a temporary concession. Silencing certain perspectives in the arts is a dangerous precedent, and it’s important to call it out for what it is.
The fear, of what will come of our vision. What is the end result of endless wealth for a few capitalist artists. And nothing for intimate creations, creations that the culture fails to witness. And are poor for the lack of it.