It’s not often that the liberal ladies of The View actually have divergent views, but when those happen, they don’t know how to deal with it. During Friday’s show, staunchly racist Sunny Hostin lashed out at white men and was on so on the defensive about racist Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs that she couldn’t recognize that pretend independent co-host Sara Haines was critiquing them from the left. That misunderstanding led to the two of them clashing over the effectiveness of DEI.
What triggered their conversation about DEI was a soundbite of former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg daring to question how DEI got implemented. “It is how Trump Republicans are made if that comes to your workplace with the best of intentions, but doesn't actually get at what we're -- what would actually matter and what's at stake,” he explained.
“I think he got that so wrong and I think it was so tone deaf considering what’s going on,” proclaimed Hostin. “All of it. I thought all of it was tone deaf.”
Hostin then proceeded to attack white men and put actions of people in the past on those of today, suggesting that they don’t have their jobs based on merit:
From 1776 to 1965, you have basically white men in charge of everything. Right? Women, people of color, we’re left out of just equality, equality of opportunity, that sort of thing. And I think when that equality starts popping up in terms of diversity programs, equality now feels like oppression to those people who were at the top of the ladder, not necessarily because of their merit but because of their identity.
“If the problem is these programs, what is the solution? What – Should we just then depend on the benevolence of Elon Musk and white billionaires to hire women and people of color?” the staunch racist demanded to know.
Later in the conversation, Haines jumped in with her own soundbite of the Democratic National Committee’s winter meeting to show the ridiculousness of how DEI currently got implemented (Click “expand”):
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 1 (singing): You fight on, you fight on, when your government is doing you wrong.
[Transition]
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 2: You may vote for two males, two females, two of any gender, okay, nope, you can't do that because we've got to balance. You could vote for one of any gender, okay? Our non-binary gender, excuse me.
After the clip, Haines argued that people were “losing sight of the spirit of what DEI was by doing this in this fashion.”
Adding: “…because of the times we live in, it's so politically charged, so many are frustrated that people are pushing back on DEI, that they're not taking a minute to pause that maybe DEI itself needed improvements in its actual application.”
Hostin was so wired to defend DEI at all costs that even when Haines cited a DEI professional’s critiques of how to better implement such programs, she was meeting with the hostility reserved for those trying to abolish it outright:
HAINES: The results of this are saying that there were people there that needed help with the diversity, the equity, the inclusion, bringing people on, the pay disparity still exists. They aren't getting the jobs. So, not every critic of DEI, which I'm one of them, says that it can't do better!
HOSTIN: DEI programs make sure that the most qualified candidates traditionally excluded from opportunity are given the chance to compete. So, this notion somehow that blind hiring could work, I think that's something, but it's not about --
FARAH GRIFFIN: But wouldn’t it take the race or identity out of it and it would be purely based on what you put forward?
HOSTIN: But it's not about merit. Because the people that are in these DEI programs are already the best of the best.
“She is saying the companies end up doing tokenism rather than helping by the way the approach DEI,” Haines noted of failed implementations of DEI. “It’s not tokenism!” Hostin exclaimed.
Haines was approaching fixing DEI from the left and was so blinded by her knee-jerk need to defend it, that she couldn’t see that she was battling an ally.
The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read:
ABC’s The View
February 21, 2025
11:02:41 a.m. Eastern(…)
PETE BUTTIGIEG: It is how Trump Republicans are made if that comes to your workplace with the best of intentions, but doesn't actually get at what we're -- what would actually matter and what's at stake.
[Cuts back to live]
JOY BEHAR: So, do you agree with him that DEI initiatives drove voters Trump and what else can be done to make sure everyone is represented on an even playing field?
SUNNY HOSTIN: You know what I think?
BEHAR: What do you think, Sunny?
HOSTIN: I like Pete, of course, but I think he got that so wrong and I think it was so tone deaf considering what’s going on –
BEHAR: Which part?
HOSTIN: All of it. I thought all of it was tone deaf. Because what happens is when – from 1776 to 1965, you have basically white men in charge of everything. Right? Women, people of color, we’re left out of just equality, equality of opportunity, that sort of thing. And I think when that equality starts popping up in terms of diversity programs, equality now feels like oppression to those people who were at the top of the ladder, not necessarily because of their merit but because of their identity. Right?
And so in my view, when you look at the stats, it is really clear from McKenzie actually, a consulting firm that Pete used to work for. That firm found that companies with more diversity, financially and socially outperformed those that are less diverse. So, the business case for diversity, equity, and inclusion, it makes sense, and I think we can all agree that we want our workforce to reflect what our world looks like.
BEHAR: I think he does too, though. Don’t you?
HOSTIN: No, I think he does, but my question really, I think we need to reframe the discussion. If the problem is these programs, what is the solution? What – Should we just then depend on the benevolence of Elon Musk and white billionaires to hire women and people of color?
BEHAR: No.
HOSTIN: Should we just depend on corporations to on their own make the workforce more diverse? They didn't do it from 1776 to 1965, why do we think it's going to be any different?
(…)
11:06:55 a.m. Eastern
SARA HAINES: I want to jump in because the David Axelrod conversation you're talking about was in reference to the DNC winter meeting that happened over a few days and just want to show a click clip of what went down.
[Cuts to video]
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 1 (singing): You fight on, you fight on, when your government is doing you wrong.
[Transition]
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 2: You may vote for two males, two females, two of any gender, okay, nope, you can't do that because we've got to balance. You could vote for one of any gender, okay? Our non-binary gender, excuse me.
[Cuts back to live]
HAINES: So.
BEHAR: So, what about it?
HAINES: What he's referring to is they're losing sight of the spirit of what DEI was by doing this in this fashion. And while people are reacting because of the times we live in, it's so politically charged, so many are frustrated that people are pushing back on DEI, that they're not taking a minute to pause that maybe DEI itself needed improvements in its actual application.
We're seeing a lot of things, one was New York Times staged fake interviews with diverse candidates, a woman – Sorry, Wells Fargo, The New York Times reported it just to be clear. A woman or person of color after the position had been filled to check off their boxes of minority inclusion. That's not helping anyone. So a lot of the problem is that --
HOSTIN: But that implies the woman wasn't qualified for the job.
HAINES: There was no job.
But Lily Jiang who wrote for Harvard Business Review; reputable place. She's a critic. She says she's a DEI strategist and consultant. And one of the things she said is: DEI was never focused on the results, it was just the commitment to the results. So companies would hide under this idea of ‘we're so progressive’ with no -- not a lot of benefits or not always benefits to the people they claim to be helping. So, some ways you change it; Sunny, you've been asking it all day, what are the things?
HOSTIN: What's the solution?
HAINES: So, she has solutions. She’s saying focus on measurable results like pay equity, physical and psychological safety, holding network events, blind hiring. There are a lot of things that you can --
BEHAR: Blind hiring, that makes sense.
HAINES: Right.
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: But isn't that merit-based. Isn't that the whole argument that DEI is against?
HAINES: She dug in because she's a consultant on DEI for companies for ten plus years and what she's saying is regardless of the –
FARAH GRIFFIN: Blind hiring is the opposite of DEI?
HOSTIN: No, that's not true.
HAINES: The results, for anyone listening still –
FARAH GRIFFIN: You cannot mention --
HAINES: The results of this are saying that there were people there that needed help with the diversity, the equity, the inclusion, bringing people on, the pay disparity still exists. They aren't getting the jobs. So, not every critic of DEI, which I'm one of them, says that it can't do better!
HOSTIN: DEI programs make sure that the most qualified candidates traditionally excluded from opportunity are given the chance to compete. So, this notion somehow that blind hiring could work, I think that's something, but it's not about --
FARAH GRIFFIN: But wouldn’t it take the race or identity out of it and it would be purely based on what you put forward?
HOSTIN: But it's not about merit. Because the people that are in these DEI programs are already the best of the best.
HAINES: She is saying the companies end up doing tokenism rather than helping by the way the approach DEI.
HOSTIN: It’s not tokenism!
FARAH GRIFFIN: I mean, I can tell by the number of times I’ve had people in corporate America be like, “lean into the fact that you're an Arab American.” I don't ever want somebody to be able to look at me and say you are a DEI hire.
(…)
