Devon Lee, PhD
Judy Lubin, PhD, MPH
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion includes a range of policies and practices that help organizations, businesses and governments create a more fair and inclusive society. DEI is not merely about educating people on diversity or creating corporate policies; it’s about building an America that respects and works for all of us—across races and genders, backgrounds and abilities, faiths and sexualities. Without DEI, systemic inequities—such as pay gaps, limited access to certain industries, housing and health care disparities—persist, and marginalized groups continue to endure discriminatory conditions that are masked by the myth of a fair and neutral society.
Today’s fight for DEI continues the same struggle that led Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to march on Washington for jobs and freedom in 1963. Just as King called for an America where opportunity and justice were not hampered by race, DEI serves to create a society where all people—regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation—can thrive. Where DEI is successful, it serves as a microcosm of the larger society by offering an example of how allowing people to thrive creates more opportunity and happiness for everyone.
Despite its clear purpose, DEI is under attack: facing a barrage of misinformation. By undermining the merits of DEI and misrepresenting its intentions, these falsehoods only preserve existing disparities. Below, we debunk five common myths with evidence-based insights on why DEI remains essential for moving the country forward toward opportunity, belonging, and justice for all.
Lie 1: DEI is “Reverse Discrimination” – Critics argue that DEI policies unfairly disadvantage white people. In reality, DEI corrects systemic disparities already in existence, to ensure equitable access to opportunity across the board.
Lie 2: DEI Only Benefits Black People – Detractors frame DEI as a range of racial preference programs that benefit Black people at the expense of others. In truth, DEI policies create a more equitable playing field by addressing the barriers experienced by demographics that have historically been overlooked, i.e., people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ people, women, and other marginalized groups.
Lie 3: DEI Initiatives Are Unnecessary and Outdated – Some claim that DEI is no longer needed because America has achieved racial equality. Yet, the persistent socioeconomic disparities that exist along racial lines prove otherwise.
Lie 4: DEI Promotes Anti-White Sentiment – The idea that DEI promotes anti-white sentiment is a myth rooted in racial anxiety and fear of social change. DEI is about correction and not retaliation; it is about inclusion, not exclusion.
Lie 5: Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence (MEI) Can Replace DEI – Proponents of MEI argue that merit-based hiring and promotion can replace DEI. However, research shows that claims of meritocracy often work to maintain the status quo, preventing the creation of truly inclusive environments where the full range of human potential is acknowleged and valued.
The illusion that we live in a merit-based society is incredibly alluring. In choosing to believe the world is not broken, we relieve ourselves of the responsibility to help fix it. But, in doing this, we deny reality and empower many lies that do much damage. By facing the facts and confronting the myths, we reveal the truth: DEI is not about creating winners and losers but ensuring that opportunities are accessible to all no matter our race, gender, or ZIP code.
Opponents of DEI claim that these initiatives disadvantage white people, portraying DEI as “reverse discrimination.” This argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of DEI’s purpose and an underlying discomfort with shifting demographics.
DEI initiatives do not penalize anyone —instead, they rectify long-standing inequities by opening the door to opportunity so that everyone has a fair chance to be considered and reach their full potential. Hiring and promotion decisions are already influenced by racial bias, with research consistently showing that white candidates are favored over equally qualified Black and Latino candidates.
A meta-analysis published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that since 1989, white applicants received 36% more callbacks than Black applicants and 24% more than Latino applicants—with no improvement in racial bias over 25 years (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004). A 2018 meta-analysis by Quilian et al. found that this trend continues through the offer process, with white candidates being 128% likelier to receive callbacks than BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) candidates with the same qualifications.
A joint study by LinkedIn and the Harvard Business Review found that 85% of jobs are filled through professional networks, which have been found to exclude candidates of color disproportionately. Even after being hired, white employees are 68% less likely to leave their jobs and 74% more likely to be promoted than their BIPOC counterparts (McKinsey & Company, 2024).
Research also shows that diverse teams drive innovation and enhance organizational performance. A study published in the Harvard Business Review found that companies with diverse leadership teams are 70% more likely to outperform competitors and capture new markets, and 87% more likely to make better decisions than their homogenous counterparts (Lorenzo et al., 2018).
Thus, DEI ensures that talent is recognized through ability and not structural biases, ultimately benefiting workplaces and the economy as a whole. DEI also raises standards previously lowered by the tendency to mistake perceptions of sameness for indicators of merit. Raising the bar in this way facilitates innovation, improved decision-making, and more sophisticated recruitment, retention, and promotion processes that benefit all. Many consider this the curb-cut effect that makes “racially diverse companies 35 percent more likely to outperform their peers” (Blackwell, 2017).
Critics argue that DEI initiatives exclusively benefit Black people, framing DEI as a series of racial preference programs instead of broad inclusion efforts. This is rooted in the historical alignment of civil rights activism and DEI.
DEI is a framework designed to ensure that institutions account for all aspects of human identity, including race, gender, sexual orientation, age, veteran status, ability, and caregiver responsibilities. Workplaces, schools and communities cannot effectively promote fairness and psychological safety for all without accounting for different experiences and needs. To argue against targeted interventions for vulnerable groups is to insist on healing the body without treating the wound. We cannot see meaningful progress without engaging historically disadvantaged groups. But the outcome of an equity-based approach is that everyone wins. The curb-cut effect, as described by Angela Blackwell, founder of PolicyLink, illustrates how laws and programs designed to benefit vulnerable groups, such as people with disabilities or communities of color, often end up benefiting all of society (Blackwell 2017). Similarly, when the needs of vulnerable populations are ignored, the nation’s health, economic prosperity, and well-being suffer.
Yet, the narrative that DEI is an unearned privilege for Black people persists. The term “diversity hire” is now casually used in popular discourse, leading many to believe that DEI exists in the dichotomy of pro-Black and anti-white. From the mouths of white nationalists and politicians with agendas, it has become a code word that appeals to those who see the upward mobility of others as a threat to their own advancement.
In their current usage, DEI is being used as a dog whistle. A dog whistle is a term that employs coded language to evoke racial fears and anxieties (López, 2014). The intentional misuse of these terms fuels the false claim that DEI disproportionately benefits Black people, despite research showing that white applicants continue to receive preferential treatment in hiring.
A landmark study found that white job applicants with felony convictions were just as likely to receive callbacks as Black applicants with college degrees (Pager, 2003). This reality highlights the deep racial disparities embedded in hiring practices.
Who Actually Benefits from DEI?
Despite claims that DEI is Black-centered, the data show that white professionals—specifically white women—are its primary beneficiaries:
Corporate DEI efforts have primarily benefited white women in leadership, promotions and pay equity initiatives (McKinsey & Company, 2024).
A Harvard Business Review analysis found that many diversity initiatives prioritize gender over race, disproportionately benefiting white women while leaving racial disparities largely unaddressed (Malhotra, 2024).
Instead of dismantling racial hierarchies, many DEI programs have reinforced them by expanding opportunities for white women while projecting an illusion of meaningful change. This only proves that the systems and ideologies that uphold racial inequity are deep-rooted and tenacious. Despite their limitations and the need for broader social change, DEI policies and practices remain vital tools for advancing progress toward eliminating all forms of discrimination and bias.
DEI is not a perfect solution, but its development alongside the civil rights movement has been strategically restricted, especially when addressing racial disparities. Despite this, companies that effectively implement DEI perform better (Lorenzo et al., 2018). Businesses with diverse leadership are 70% more likely to capture new markets and respond effectively to client needs, a clear indicator that DEI is about organizational success and sustainability—not favoritism.
The data do not support the claim that DEI unfairly benefits Black people. Instead of tipping the scales in the opposite direction, DEI works to ensure that workplaces and institutions are restructured to benefit all people—not just those who have always had access.
Some critics argue that DEI was once useful but is no longer needed in our modern, “merit-based society.” This claim goes further to suggest that DEI is a new kind of racism and colorblindness is the only ethical solution.
Colorblindness assumes that the post-civil rights society is also a post-racial one. Thus, if everyone were to simply “not see” race, racism would cease to exist. Yet, being “blind” to race means being oblivious to the enduring racial disparities that remain unresolved. In this way, the colorblind movement is society’s attempt to achieve a happy ending without doing the work to get there.
But to those who falsely believe America has achieved its constitutional promise of equality for all, DEI initiatives seem counterintuitive at best. At worst, they are a disruptive force that takes us backward, breaking what has already been fixed. This seemingly virtuous idea that America’s longstanding history of racism could be so quickly and neatly resolved is nothing more than insidious and willful ignorance.
In a world where differences are often overlooked in favor of “unity” and shared commonalities, DEI’s commitment to recognizing and engaging with our differences is frequently misrepresented as divisive (McBride, 2025). This phenomenon is encapsulated by the popular adage that “[w]hen you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression” (Efird et al. 2024). Thus, corrective and necessary societal changes are perceived as some kind of retaliatory measure: a “reverse racism” that only colorblindness can rectify.
Colorblindness is the blanket that keeps the myth of equal opportunity warm. Both are figments of the imagination that obscure the reality that racism is alive, well, and thriving. To believe that equal opportunity exists, one must ignore the ongoing racial, economic, and educational barriers that shape success. If merit alone dictated outcomes, we would not see consistent racial disparities in student debt, wealth accumulation, and homeownership.
Educational Disparities: Black college graduates carry disproportionate student loan debt, with an average of $53,000—far higher than their white counterparts. This financial burden limits career mobility, delays wealth building, and perpetuates economic disadvantage (EducationData.org).
Wealth Inequities: Income parity does not equate to wealth equity. Due to historical injustices like redlining, Black families continue to hold significantly less wealth than white families—even when earning similar salaries. Black homeowners making $75,000–$100,000 receive higher mortgage interest rates than white homeowners earning just $30,000, further compounding financial disparities (Hanifa, 2022).
Housing Disparities: The legacy of discriminatory housing policies continues, with Black homeownership rates at just 43.4% compared to 72.1% for white households. Ongoing lending discrimination and economic disadvantages continue to lock Black families out of generational wealth-building opportunities (Richelieu 2023).
These interconnected disparities prove that merit alone does not drive success; systemic barriers continue to shape economic and educational outcomes. A study published in Perspectives on Psychological Science found that the assumption that racial equality has been achieved contributes to the ignorance of enduring racial inequality (Kraus et al., 2019).
Resistance to pro-equity changes makes disparity durable and colorblindness doubly insidious.
Without DEI programs, inequity will not just persist but worsen. Resistance to DEI initiatives simultaneously reinforces cycles of exclusion and hinders true opportunity for all.
Conclusion: Moving Forward, Shifting the Narrative
DEI is not about creating winners and losers. It is about ensuring that opportunity is accessible to everyone. Myths portraying DEI as discriminatory ignore the realities of systemic inequality. By confronting these falsehoods with facts, we can better understand the necessity of DEI and its role in creating a truly equitable future.
Some DEI detractors believe that equity is an extension of critical race theory, which is an academic and legal framework that recognizes that American society and institutions are not colorblind and that racism is systemically embedded in laws and policies. According to this perspective, CRT’s the emphasis on race and historical grievances exacerbates social tension and fosters resentment toward whites (Sailor 2021). Proponents of this view argue that highlighting race, gender, and sexual orientation disparity and discrimination creates narratives that incite distrust and reverse discrimination. They maintain that such an approach paves the way for “white replacement” or “white disappearance,” thus making it a threat to “traditional” American culture and the standards of its institutions (Beydoun and Sedique 2021).
Consequently, supporters of a “colorblind” and “merit-based” framework advocate for rejecting DEI initiatives, arguing that these measures undermine national unity and traditional societal values.
While most DEI initiatives are not rooted in critical race theory, the attacks on CRT, DEI and other forms of racial and gender discussions are part of the same coordinated campaign against racial and gender equity.
DEI focuses on transforming workplaces and societies to make them reflect the world around us. Simultaneously, DEI acknowledges the reality that most modern institutions were simply not designed with the needs and lived experiences of marginalized groups in mind. Because of this, workplaces and institutions are often exclusionary by default, and in ways that are invisible to those who are not directly harmed by these practices. It is this exclusionary default that DEI seeks to correct.
Moreover, the “white replacement” argument is often rooted in opposition to social progress and negative sentiments about people of color, women, immigrants, and religious minorities. Klofstad et al. (2024) found that belief in the white replacement conspiracy theory correlates with a higher propensity for violence and support for authoritarian policies. This fear-driven perspective aligns with political policies that oppose DEI efforts in favor of so-called “colorblind” policies, which ignore the real-world consequences of historical and systemic discrimination.
Research by Jedinger et al. (2024) found that belief in the “great replacement” theory is linked to lower cognitive reflection, meaning the individuals who support it often rely on immediate assumptions rather than analytical thinking or deeper analysis.
The push for colorblind policies aims to exploit white fear by framing efforts to address systemic inequities as attacks on white identity and comfort. Proponents of this anti-DEI perspective weaponize racial anxiety. Research on colorblind racial ideology indicates that colorblind perspectives (and resulting policy) mask enduring disparities (Bonilla-Silva, 2021; Norton & Sommers, 2011). Neutrality both dismisses and sustains inequity by allowing those who are not from marginalized groups to believe that their achievements have nothing to do with being comparatively privileged in any number of socioeconomic categories (Plaut et al., 2011; Sue et al., 2007). The myth that DEI fosters hatred is designed to stoke white racial anxiety and fuel opposition to a multiracial and multicultural society. Rather than replacing or punishing any group, striving for equity and belonging is how we realize a shared vision for our country where everyone is valued, respected, and has a fair opportunity to thrive.
Proponents of the Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence (MEI) framework argue that workplace success should be determined solely by individual skills, work ethic, and achievements, without considering race or other identity factors. They assert that race-conscious policies undermine meritocracy by overemphasizing characteristics like race and sexual orientation, potentially leading to preferential treatment that contradicts American values of fairness and equal opportunity. From this viewpoint, MEI aligns with “core” American principles by promoting a colorblind approach that rewards hard work and ability, suggesting that diversity will naturally emerge from such a system.
MEI perpetuates systemic exclusion by preserving racial bias under the guise of neutrality. Historically, processes that actually advantage white individuals have been presented and perceived as standard, sensible and fair. Indeed, it is often easiest to perpetuate disparity when it is disguised as neutrality. A study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that individuals who adopt colorblind ideologies are more likely to uphold existing racial hierarchies and deny systemic discrimination (Apfelbaum, Norton, & Sommers, 2008). Thus, colorblind ideology dismisses systemic disparities as insignificant and minimizes the role of white advantage, thereby upholding the status quo.
Hiring, promotions, and leadership appointments are rarely race-neutral. A study by Knowles and Lowery (2014) found that white individuals who strongly endorse meritocratic principles often do so to deny or distance themselves from the realities of racial privilege (Knowles & Lowery, 2014). Research on standardized testing, similar to hiring (Pager, 2003) and promotion preferences (McKinsey & Company, 2024), demonstrates that these assessments were originally designed to reinforce racial and socioeconomic exclusion (Soares, 2020). This historical context indicates that what is often labeled as “merit” is deeply intertwined with systemic biases.
MEI is not a fairness model—it is a strategic effort to maintain white dominance while dismissing racial inequities as nonexistent. By rejecting race-conscious policies in favor of “neutrality,” MEI engages in deliberate racial gaslighting—denying systemic inequities while extending their lifespan. MEI does not promote fairness; it makes it even harder to address the inequities that already exist.
Apfelbaum, E. P., Sommers, S. R., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Seeing race and seeming racist? Evaluating strategic colorblindness in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 918–932.
Ballard Brief. (n.d.). Racial Disparities in Homeownership. Retrieved from https://ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/racial-disparities-in-homeownership
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination. American Economic Review, 94(4), 991–1013.
Beydoun, K. A., & Sediqe, N. A. (2021). The Great Replacement: White Supremacy as Terrorism? Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. Retrieved from https://journals.law.harvard.edu/crcl/wp-content/uploads/sites/80/2023/04/The-Great-Replace ment.pdf
Blackwell, A. G. (2017). The Curb-Cut Effect. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2017.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America. Rowman & Littlefield.
EducationData.org: Hanson, M. (2025, January 15). Student Loan Debt Statistics. Education Data Initiative. Retrieved from https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-statistics
Efird, C. R., Wilkins, C. L., & Versey, H. S. (2024). Whiteness hurts society: How whiteness shapes mental, physical, and social health outcomes. Journal of Social Issues, 80, 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12598
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2020). Implicit Bias and Its Effects on Perceptions of Merit and Intelligence. Journal of Social Issues, 76(4), 894–914.
Hachem, Z. A., & Dover, T. L. (2024). The presence of diversity initiatives leads to increased pro-White hiring decisions among conservatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 153(8), 2100–2126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001614
Haney López, I. (2014). Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://global.oup.com/academic/product/dog-whistle-politics-9780190841805
Hanifa, R. (2021). High-income Black homeowners receive higher interest rates than low-income white homeowners. Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. Retrieved from https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/high-income-black-homeowners-receive-higher-interest-rat es-low-income-white-homeowners
Harvard Business Review (2023) Diversity Report: Lorenzo, R., Voigt, N., Schetelig, K., Zawadzki, A., Welpe, I., & Brosi, P. (2020). The Mix That Matters: Innovation Through Diversity. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2020/01/the-mix-that-matters-innovation-through-diversity
Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS). (2024). The State of the Nation’s Housing 2024. Retrieved from https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/state-nations-housing-2024
Herring, C. (2009). Does diversity pay? Race, gender, and the business case for diversity.
American Sociological Review, 74(2), 208–224.
Hofstra, B., Kulkarni, V. V., Munoz-Najar Galvez, S., He, B., Jurafsky, D., & McFarland, D. A. (2020). The diversity–innovation paradox in science. Nature Communications, 11, 5585. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.02063
Jedinger, A., Masch, L., & Burger, A. M. (2023). Cognitive Reflection and Endorsement of the “Great Replacement” Conspiracy Theory. Social Psychological Bulletin, 18, Article e10825.
Klofstad, C. A., Uscinski, J. E., & West, J. P. (2024). Belief in White Replacement. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 12(1), 123–140.
Knowles, E. D., Lowery, B. S., Chow, R. M., & Unzueta, M. M. (2014). Deny, Distance, or Dismantle? How White Americans Manage a Privileged Identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 594–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614554658
Kraus, M. W., Onyeador, I. N., Daumeyer, N. M., Rucker, J. M., & Richeson, J. A. (2019). The Misperception of Racial Economic Inequality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(6), 899–921. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619863049
Lorenzo, R., Voigt, N., Tsusaka, M., Krentz, M., & Abouzahr, K. (2018). How Diverse Leadership Teams Boost Innovation. Boston Consulting Group.
McKinsey & Company. (2024). Women in the Workplace 2024. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace- 2024
Norton, M. I., & Sommers, S. R. (2011). Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that they are now losing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 215–218.
Østergaard, C. R., & Timmermans, B. (2023). Workplace diversity and innovation performance: Current state of affairs and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05219.
Plaut, V. C., Garnett, F. G., Buffardi, L. E., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2011). What about me? Perceptions of exclusion and Whites’ reactions to multiculturalism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 337–353.
Quillian, L., Heath, A., Pager, D., Midtbøen, A. H., Fleischmann, F., & Hexel, O. (2018). Do some countries discriminate more than others? Evidence from 97 field experiments of racial discrimination in hiring (IPR Working Paper No. WP-18-28). Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.
Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and model.
Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 176–189.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286.
Sailor, Angela. (2021). The Heritage Foundation. (n.d.). Schools hiding behind diversity and inclusion rhetoric to spew critical race theory. Retrieved from https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/schools-hiding-behind-diversity-and-inclusio n-rhetoric-spew-critical-race
Van Knippenberg, D., Nishii, L. H., & Dwertmann, D. J. G. (2020). Synergy from diversity: Managing team diversity to enhance performance. Behavioral Science & Policy, 6(1), 75–92.
Retrieved from
https://behavioralpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Synergy-from-diversity-Managing-te am-diversity-to-enhance-performance-1.pdf
Zippia. (2024). Chief Diversity Officer Demographics and Statistics in the US. Retrieved from https://www.zippia.com/chief-diversity-officer-jobs/demographics/
Judy Lubin
Dr. Judy is an applied sociologist, racial equity changemaker, yoga and mindfulness practitioner, author, auntie, bestie and beach lover. Judy’s elemental nature is water, and with her she brings calming, reflective energy to hold space for deep listening, inner work and transformative dialogue.
The curator of the Embodied Justice program, she hosts the accompanying podcast and co-facilitates events and dialogues focused on the collective healing and sustainability of Black changemakers.
At CURE, Dr. Judy has built transformative racial equity frameworks and change management processes that have impacted thousands of lives. She began her career focused on health disparities, recognizing that stress from societal racism can become embodied and manifested through “weathering” that prematurely ages the body and shortens the lifespan of racially marginalized communities.
She is unapologetically committed to centering Black people and the communities that have inspired her life’s work. The daughter of Haitian immigrants, she grew up in South Florida surrounded by music, her grandmother’s herbal garden, and the struggle to make it in a country that saw her family as outsiders.
In 2022, after experiencing multiple health emergencies coupled with burnout from the intensity of the “racial reckoning” that increased demand for CURE’s racial equity services, Judy began a process of listening to the wisdom of her body, healing old trauma wounds, and reclaiming rest and her love of mind-body healing. During this time she explored somatics, indigenous and and ancestral healing practices and earned certifications in multiple healing modalities including yoga and energy medicine.
Emerging from a place of rest and listening to what her soul wanted to share, she now weaves mindfulness, body-awareness and spiritual activism to support changemakers and organizations to regenerate their leadership and give to the world from a place of ease and wholeness.
Long committed to promoting women’s health and wellness, she is the author of The Heart of Living Well: Six Principles for a Life of Health, Beauty and Balance.
Find Judy on instagram or linkedin at @drjudylubin, where she (occasionally) shares posts celebrating Black joy, healing and well-being.
Shawn J. Moore
Residing at the intersection of leadership and mindfulness, Shawn creates sacred spaces for stillness and self-inquiry to help social impact leaders align their strengths, intention, and impact. Through his integrative approach, he holds transformative containers for self-renewal, personal discovery, and capacity-building that ease clients on their journey towards peace, clarity, and freedom.
Shawn is committed to empower changemakers to become embodied leaders – unified in mind, body, and heart – with the tools to mindfully pause, reconnect to their inner knowing, make strengths-driven decisions, and lead the change they believe the world needs.
Reckoning with his own contemplation of burnout, purpose, and alignment, Shawn transitioned out of his role as Associate Dean of Student Life & Leadership at Morehouse College in the fall of 2021 to focus more on mindfulness and stillness-based training programs and workshops.
While leadership resonates with him deeply, it is his personal and spiritual practices that allows him to continue to show up for himself and others. He is a yoga teacher (E-RYT® 200, RYT® 500, YACEP®), sound and reiki practitioner, meditation teacher, Yoga Nidra facilitator, and Gallup-Certified Strengths Coach, all focused through a Buddhist lens and 17 years of personal practice. He has contributed workshops, practices, and educational opportunities for celebrities like Questlove and Dyllón Burnside, and various yoga studios and colleges, Yoga International, Omstars, Melanin Moves Project, the Human Rights Campaign, Spotify and Lululemon. He currently serves as the Facilitation and Community Manager for BEAM (Black Emotional & Mental Health Collective).
Shawn hosts a podcast called The Mindful Rebel® Podcast that creates a platform to continually explore this unique intersection of leadership and mindfulness. Find him on instagram @shawnj_moore
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and to provide a better browsing experience.
