Staff Reports
The recent appointment of Zakiya Carr Johnson as the chief diversity and inclusion officer (CDIO) at the State Department has sparked controversy and criticism from some quarters, who see it as evidence of a "woke" agenda infiltrating government agencies. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's decision to fill the vacant CDIO position after 10 months has raised eyebrows, with accusations of pandering to the left and prioritizing diversity over merit-based hiring.
Critics argue that Blinken's emphasis on "diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility" overlooks the importance of merit-based hiring and ensuring that the most qualified individuals are selected for critical roles within the State Department. Instead, they perceive the creation of the CDIO position as a means of advancing a liberal agenda, rather than focusing on the department's core mission.
Blinken announces appointment of new DEI chief after 10-month vacancy https://t.co/b5OeZqiHvc via @dcexaminer
— John Galt (@dhrxsol1234) April 2, 2024
Zakiya Carr Johnson's background, particularly her previous work with the State Department and efforts to promote entrepreneurship and access to opportunity for underrepresented populations, has drawn scrutiny from those who view it as further evidence of a leftist agenda permeating government institutions. Critics question the validity of claims of discrimination and harassment within the department, pointing out that many alleged incidents went unreported, casting doubt on the extent of the problem.
The resignation of former Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley as the DEI chief has also raised questions, although the reasons behind her departure remain unclear. Some see it as indicative of pressure from the "woke mob" to prioritize diversity and inclusion initiatives over other priorities within the State Department.
Overall, opponents of the appointment and the broader push for diversity and inclusion initiatives in government agencies argue for a return to merit-based hiring practices and the promotion of the most qualified candidates, irrespective of their race or background. They see efforts to prioritize diversity quotas as discriminatory against those who prioritize qualifications over other factors.
