What’s DEI got to do with it?
The Cancellation of Lauren Fein
February 6, 2025
By Dr. Bill Woodson
By Dr. Bill Woodson
After you’ve seen The Cancellation of Lauren Fein, if you consider it a powerful critique of “woke” liberal institutions and DEI, you’re not wrong. And if you saw Lauren Fein as a powerful affirmation of the critical importance of empathy and respect for all identities, values that are often associated with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, you are—also not wrong.
How can that be, you ask?
If on the other hand, you don’t feel that Lauren Fein is about DEI at all, well, there’s a sound argument to be made for that as well.
Part of the opportunity (opportunity?) of seeing The Cancellation of Lauren Fein in such contrasting lights, is due to the fact that DEI means so many things to different people. Some see Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion as a series of formulaic sensitivity training-type exercises where one learns that white people are bad, and non-white people are good, combined with affirmative action programs and quotas focused on forcing representation that aligns with identity representation in the larger society. There are others who would say that DEI is a family of practices designed to help organizations and individuals understand historic harms, and equip them to mitigate and even reverse the adverse impacts of those harms and associated disadvantages, typically in the context of institutions such as businesses or schools.
One could think of Lauren Fein as a DEI Rorschach test. What you see depends not strictly on the image but rather on how your values and past experiences shape how you process and interpret that image.
If you’re worried that I have posed a riddle without revealing the “answer,” fear not! I don’t want to give away too much of the plot, or dictate how you should process what I believe is an unusually rich and thoughtful story, performed with great verve and authenticity by the cast. But I will encourage you to cut through the noise of competing ideologies and definitions. Instead, look for where each character’s commitment to genuine empathy for those around them falls short—where appreciation for the values and the perspective of “the other” falls away in favor of a narrow understanding of the world. Accompanied by neglect, if not outright disdain, for the identities, experiences, and perspectives of others. To be sure, this is an all too human failing. It’s something that every single one of us, this writer included, has fallen prey to, more than once.
And when we can’t find our way to seeing another person’s perspective, and fail to give it and them appropriate weight and value, then it becomes easy to “cancel” them. And equally easy to find that you yourself may be “cancelled” as a result.
Inclusion is not defined by affirmative action programs. Or unconscious bias trainings. Or heritage celebrations. I’m not saying those things, properly designed and executed, don’t have the potential to contribute to a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment that engenders a sense of belonging for all. Or for that matter, as critics would argue, the potential to do just the opposite. Particularly when implemented in a fashion that is inauthentic, insincere, or performative.
What both critics and champions of DEI overlook is that qualities that lead to being an effective human being—one who engages with others in a way that is responsive, appreciative, affirming, and productive, are the qualities that DEI efforts purport to promote. In recognizing that the path for some
identities—women, people of color, neuro diverse, physically disabled, the recent immigrant, persons learning the dominant language, members of the LGBTQ community, the person who is housing insecure, who lacks access to healthcare, or, these days, a reliable internet connection and a smart phone, these people are not defined by their lack of privilege, or the barriers society has placed in their way. Neither is the person on the privileged side of one of these various scales defined by the societal privilege that has been bestowed upon them.
As a DEI practitioner (and therefore currently an endangered species!) and as a human being whose identities include many noteworthy dimensions of privilege, as well as several of disprivilege, the greatest resistance I’ve encountered has not been to convince colleagues to extend grace and care to marginalized identities. It’s been resistance to my advocacy for extending care and a sense of shared community, even to those whose identities are a constellation of privilege, and whose words or actions have caused harm, particularly when the harm appears to have been unintentional. Radical inclusion includes even crass, privileged white PhDs. As well as gay females with a drinking problem, who are struggling to raise a foster son. This need for empathy and inclusion is no less urgent when all those identities are wrapped up in a single individual. In fact, it’s a great illustration of the reality that there’s not one of us who at some point can’t benefit from radical empathy and grace. As humans, we cannot be perfect. And we don’t need to be, if others can see the good in us and are willing to extend grace, even while helping us see—and correct—our shortcomings. It certainly beats cancellation.