How did the phrase, “diversity, equity and inclusion”—DEI—which sounds like a positive thing, get such a bad rap? The answer lies in how the concept has often been introduced.

Our guest, Dr. Melissa Crum, explains that most people aren’t reacting to the actual idea of DEI; they’re reacting to how the idea was introduced. Instead of hearing, “Let’s look at systems that create problems,” people hear, “Oh, I’m the problem?!” And once that happens, people shut down.

Dr. Crum helps people separate themselves as individuals from the systems they live in. She’s not telling her listeners they’re bad people. She tells them there are larger patterns in which we all operate. When people hear that distinction, meaningful conversation happens.

Dr. Crum reflects on power in everyday moments. Even something as simple as how you talk to server in a restaurant can reflect a power dynamic. It’s about being aware that not everyone you deal with has the same ability, or relative power, to respond or push back in those moments.

Context matters. A word or phrase that feels harmless—or even friendly—to one person might carry a completely different meaning for someone else based on their experiences. Instead of assuming everyone hears things the same way, Dr. Crum encourages us to be a little more curious and flexible in how we communicate.

Promoting inclusion doesn’t come with one training session. This is a marathon, not a sprint. You can’t expect people to completely rethink years—or decades—of assumptions in a couple hours. That’s part of why some of those past trainings backfired. People were overwhelmed, and nothing really stuck.

Promoting DEI means examining how an organization actually functions. Just saying, “We value inclusion,” does nothing, but defining what inclusion means in real situations—like hiring, promotions, meetings, decision-making—brings meaningful change.

And what does a business get in return? Employees who feel valued are engaged in their work. Turnover decreases, and productivity increases. DEI is good for business.

What has caused the rise in political violence in the United States that culminated with the January 6 insurrection? In part, our government’s uneven and counterproductive responses to jihad terrorism.

After 9/11, U.S. policy was disproportionately harsh toward Muslims while being comparatively lenient toward violence committed by far-right actors. This imbalance, according to our guest, Laura Dugan, Ph.D., professor of sociology at The Ohio State University, created both backlash and blind spots.

On one hand, aggressive policies—mass detentions and heightened surveillance—fueled resentment and contributed to the global spread of extremist movements. On the other, the failure to consistently label as “terrorism” acts of violence committed by white perpetrators and punish them signaled a degree of tolerance, or at least inconsistency, in law enforcement. This disparity helped normalize far-right extremism and allowed it to grow largely unchecked.

Terrorism should be defined by behavior, not identity. Using a widely accepted definition—violence or the threat of violence for political purposes—Dr. Dugan argues that parts of the January 6 attack clearly meet the threshold for terrorism, particularly the organized efforts to disrupt the certification of a presidential election. At the same time, she distinguishes between the planners of the event and the individuals who may have been swept up in the moment without intent to commit terrorism.

Far-right extremism has deep historical roots, dating back decades through movements like the Ku Klux Klan and anti-government militias. These groups have long promoted an “us versus them” worldview, often fueled by perceived existential threats. Political rhetoric that reinforces these fears—especially language that “others” specific groups—can amplify and legitimize extremist beliefs.

Focusing only on behavior, without understanding underlying grievances and ideologies, limits the ability to intervene early. Effective policy requires proportional responses, consistent accountability, and leadership that avoids dehumanizing language and instead encourages dialogue across divisions.

Today, we look into the world of conservative political commentary and focus on Ben Shapiro. At the heart of Shapiro’s approach to messaging is a bent for spouting more fiction than fact and more emotion than reason.

We listened to a Shapiro podcast in which he explains why he doesn’t regret voting for President Donald Trump. After hearing Shapiro, we have to wonder if he aligned himself with Trump, not out of conviction, but because doing so yields financial or other rewards.

There’s a big difference between fact‑based analysis and persuasive advocacy, and much of today’s political commentary—like Shapiro’s—prioritizes emotion, identity and culture‑war framing over evidence and nuance. His fast‑paced delivery, confident tone and simplified “either/or” narratives create the appearance of logic, but he often leaves out crucial context, competing facts or constitutional concerns.

Shapiro unapologetically defends Trump, particularly on issues like immigration, Iran and foreign policy. Shapiro avoids serious issues, such as human rights abuses, government overreach and the long‑term consequences the nation will suffer because of the Trump administration. He also employs fear‑based rhetoric—nuclear weapons and the border chaos—in place of thoughtful debate.

That fact that Shapiro has a large audience shows that many people accept political narratives without questioning them. Shapiro capitalizes on human nature. As we see it, many people—on both sides of the aisle—suffer from confirmation bias, emotional attachment, identity protection and prefer “comfortable untruths” over “uncomfortable truths.” And once you capture peoples’ attention based on some emotional tug, it’s hard for them to change their attitudes.

Shapiro and those like him rely on an absence of critical thinking and the reluctance by many to challenge what they hear. Of course, to challenge what you hear requires curiosity and effort, and that requires time and effort, and that’s not where many Americans are.