Common Core, Diversity, and the Lessons of Rebranding

The biggest unforced tactical error made by the folks behind the Common Core was giving it a brand name (well, second biggest, right behind creating a crappy bunch of standards in the first place). They added to this error by not sticking around to defend and gatekeep their brand. 

And before you could say "David Coleman is a twit," folks were slapping the Common Core brand on every stupid education thing they didn't like. Common Core supporters were increasingly frustrated about having defend their brand both from legitimate attacks and from stuff that was made up and unrelated to the actual standards.

They eventually caught on and dropped the actual brand in favor of vaguer language about college and career readiness. It's not snappy and makes for limp marketing, but it's also hard to poke back. It pushes everyone in the direction of arguing about whether or not Policy X actually helps students prepare for college and a career, and it lets us have pointed discussions about whether or not education should provide more than vocational prep (spoiler alert: it should). 

Right wing folks have been applying similar lessons for several years now. First it was shortening Black Lives Matter to BLM, then turning around to apply BLM to anything they found objectionable. Then it was Critical Race Theory (again, shortened to CRT, because initials can mean anything) and a ploy that was so transparent because Chris Rufo announced explicitly what he would do-- take the term and redefine it to mean "anything anyone might object to." 

As he infamously tweeted, "The goals is to have the public read something crazy in the news and immediately think 'critical race theory.' We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans."

So now it's Diversity, Equity and Inclusion-- again, more easily attacked as initials. Adam Conover (the Adam Ruins Everything guy) has a post in Bluesky today that gets to the point:

The attack on DEI shows why liberals should stop arguing about "strategic" use of language forever. DEI stands for three uncontroversial virtues that most every American accepts, and the right still turned it into a vile slur. It doesn't matter what you say - they will poison it because YOU said it.

— Adam Conover (@adamconover.net) February 27, 2025 at 8:19 PM

So now the feds are bringing a full-on attack on DEI to schools, including a website for turning in a teacher or school "to report illegal discriminatory practices" to the education department, because "DEI" means whatever they want it to mean. 

In fairness, a generation of half-assed, ill-considered corporate DEI programs had already sullied the brand. But it wouldn't have mattered, any more than it mattered that critical race theory was never really discussed outside of university classrooms. Branding creates a shorthand that cuts both ways. Just as critics can attack and redefine the label while ignoring what it stands for, schools and corporations can pay lip service to DEI without addressing the values it's supposed to represent.

Rebranding is no solution. The far right is already anticipating that, pre-emptively feinting at SEL. Vice-President Trump already warned that attempts to rebrand DEI would be punished. All labels, all branding, have the same built-in weakness.

It's time to unbrand. Let's just talk about diversity. Make the opponents of diversity (because that's what they are) explain why they are against persons who are not like them. Let them explain in plain words that they are against anything that doesn't result in their domination of diverse persons. Let them explain why a school that serves a diverse student population should act as if it does not. 

It will not settle things quickly or easily. They're going to argue that we should focus on what unites us ("get behind me and agree with me") and recognizing diversity just highlights differences. Diversity is a historical strength of this country, but not everyone sees it that way. Make them say why. 

Instead of getting sucked into arguments about what DEI "really" means, argue about those things. Never mind DEI-- tell me why you're opposed to being inclusive in this school, and while you're at it, point out to me the students who shouldn't be included and tell me why. 

Create programs that recognize the many different sorts of students in the school, create ways to make sure they get the education they deserve, and actively seek to make them part of the school. And don't brand these programs with a snappy name. Stand up for the values and principles. Labels are just convenient targets.