Moral Injury and the Manufactured Crisis of Higher Education: A Tale of Two Americas

In a cultural moment when public trust in institutions teeters on a knife’s edge, two podcasts released within days of each other expose a fundamental schism in American political philosophy. On one side, we have The Daily, interviewing conservative activist Christopher Rufo, whose strategic aim is to bring universities to heel through the weaponization of federal funding. On the other, The Weekly with Jon Stewart hosts Michael Lewis, who argues passionately for the irreplaceable role of public servants and government-funded research in safeguarding human dignity and solving the problems private enterprise won’t touch.

What emerges from this juxtaposition is not merely a debate over DEI initiatives or free speech on campus. It is a struggle for the moral soul of our democracy.

The Rufo Doctrine: Policy by Pain

Christopher Rufo’s agenda, as described in The Daily, is chilling in its clarity and intention. He explicitly outlines a vision of higher education reform driven by what he calls “existential terror”—defunding universities to the point that they must either change or die. He celebrates the federal withholding of billions in research funding from elite institutions like Columbia, Harvard, and Princeton, framing it as a righteous campaign against left-wing ideology.

Rufo sees the academy not as a flawed but vital contributor to the American democratic experiment, but as a corrupted incubator of elitist, racially divisive ideologies. He proposes that only by gutting DEI programs, enforcing colorblind admissions, and “rebalancing” faculty ideologies (through financial cudgels, not intellectual engagement), can the American university be saved.

To Rufo, pain is not a regrettable consequence—it is the lever. In his words, reform only happens when “you take away their money, their power, their status.”

Lewis and Stewart: Government as Sacred Infrastructure

Michael Lewis, in conversation with Jon Stewart, offers a moral counterpoint that is not merely political, but deeply human. His stories of unsung civil servants—people like Arthur Allen, the oceanographer who saved countless lives through drift-pattern algorithms—are more than anecdotes. They are parables about vocation, sacrifice, and the quiet effectiveness of public service.

Lewis argues that government is where “all the problems the private sector can’t solve go.” It is the collective will, funded by our shared resources, to prevent suffering and promote wellbeing—whether through rescuing people lost at sea, researching brain-eating amoebas, or developing vaccines. He mourns the invisibility of this work, made possible only because these individuals do not see themselves as characters. They are, in Stewart’s words, “the givers”—demonized by those who exploit public ignorance for political gain.

The tragedy, as both Stewart and Lewis observe, is that the electorate has been conditioned to expect perfection from government, while forgiving the spectacular failures of private enterprise. “We admire moneymaking,” Lewis reflects, “and we’ve come to treat our government like teenagers treat their mothers: full of demands, devoid of gratitude.”

Moral Injury in the Public Sphere

From a moral injury perspective, Rufo’s campaign enacts a collective violation: it punishes institutions not for betraying the public trust, but for daring to do the long, slow work of social reckoning and equity. His rhetoric reconfigures care—especially care for historically marginalized communities—as corruption. It casts honest, if imperfect, attempts to name and repair systemic harm as illegitimate.

This is precisely what moral injury theorists point to as a wound to the soul: when individuals or institutions that aim to uphold the common good are vilified, isolated, or punished for their efforts. Rufo’s industrial-scale defunding strategy represents not reform, but retribution—a dangerous inversion of justice.

Meanwhile, Lewis gives us a vision of government as sacred infrastructure. It is not pristine, nor is it market-efficient. But it is a crucible of human commitment, holding the line against entropy, disease, and disaster. It is the awkward, indispensable “mom” who packs your lunch, tracks your hurricane, finds your child adrift in the ocean, and asks for little in return.

A Call to Reframe the Narrative

We need to ask: Who benefits when we are taught to despise the very institutions meant to protect us? Who stands to gain when research, education, and critical inquiry are stripped of funding and legitimacy?

We need not pretend our universities are perfect. But the solution to perceived ideological imbalance is not a hostile takeover. It is dialogue, transparency, and renewal—none of which can grow in a climate of fear.

In contrast to Rufo’s strategy of silencing through scarcity, Lewis and Stewart suggest another way: elevate the real stories. Honor the unsung. Make the invisible visible.

Because in the end, the most dangerous ideology is the one that convinces us that shared knowledge, collective investment, and public service are our enemies.

++++++++++++++++++++

If something in this post sparks a question, stirs your curiosity, or makes you pause—I'd love to hear from you. As a coach, I'm looking for folks who yearn to be ethically centered leaders and changemakers, and the spiritually curious who are navigating complexity and seeking clarity. If you want to learn more or explore whether coaching with me, reach out at pauloppedahl@gmail.com or visit http://www.pauloppedahl.com.

Whiplash as a Business Model: Tariffs, Trump, and the Temptation of the Inside Trade

When the stock market zigzags, fortunes are made—not always by accident.

Over the past few years, we’ve watched the market convulse in response to sudden policy shifts: tariffs imposed, tariffs lifted, threats made, threats walked back. And during Donald Trump’s presidency (and hints of a repeat performance), we saw a particularly whiplash-inducing pattern emerge. One day, China is the economic enemy; the next, a deal is “tremendous.” Wall Street shudders, then surges. The Dow drops, then recovers. Repeat.

This isn’t just chaos—it’s currency.

What if, behind this volatile theater, there’s a subtler story unfolding? One of well-timed trades, of market manipulation not through secret memos, but through public policy, performed erratically enough to feel like randomness, but predictably enough to be profitable—for those in the know.

Welcome to the shadow trading economy.

The Big Short, Reimagined

Think back to The Big Short. Investors saw the collapse coming and bet against the market. Now imagine you’re not just predicting a market downturn—you’re creating it. Or at least, you’re privy to the script.

Short the market right before an announcement of new tariffs. Go long before the president lifts them. Rinse, repeat.

It sounds like conspiracy theory. But it’s closer to financial theater with real consequences.

In 2019, ProPublica and others reported on “strangely prescient trades” by individuals close to the Trump administration. While no charges were filed, the timing of certain options trades—just days before announcements that would swing markets—raised the specter of insider advantage.

Tariff Whiplash as Strategy

To most Americans, tariffs were part of a jarring policy strategy. But to a savvy insider with access to privileged information, they were a predictable volatility machine.

What’s more profitable than a bull or bear market? A rodeo. High volatility creates big opportunity—for traders who can get in before the rest of us even know what’s coming.

There’s a reason billionaires love chaos: volatility isn’t a bug, it’s the business model. But here’s the kicker—when volatility is generated from the highest office in the land, the playing field isn’t just uneven; it’s rigged.

Trust, Transparency, and Temptation

I’m not saying Donald Trump, or any specific individual, committed financial crimes. I’m saying the system makes it absurdly easy for people close to power to benefit from erratic governance.

And that’s the real scandal.

Because whether or not the trades were made, the temptation was built into the rhythm of the presidency. Tariff threats as market levers. Policy-by-tweet as a day-trader’s dream. The blurring of political strategy and financial incentive corrodes trust—especially when there’s no transparency and no consequences.

The Takeaway

When policy becomes performance art, the real audience isn’t the American people—it’s Wall Street. And the best seats go to those who helped write the script.

In the end, maybe this is the art of the deal: create instability, then sell the solution. Manufacture chaos, then profit from the calm. Who needs insider trading when you can just cause the market to soar or crash with a single tweet?

It’s not illegal if you’re just “making America great again,” right?

But it’s not democracy, either.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

If something in this post sparks a question, stirs your curiosity, or makes you pause—I'd love to hear from you. As a coach, I'm looking for Folks who yearn to be ethically centered leaders and changemakers; the spiritually curious who are navigating complexity and seeking clarity. If you want to learn more or explore whether coaching with me, reach out at pauloppedahl@gmail.com or visit http://www.pauloppedahl.com.

A classic scene from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.”

A classic scene from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” Who’d have thought it’d be so relevant today?

And to think it is possible to learn from history.

https://youtube.com/shorts/RUAuLSYLxus?si=jPMhkHRlVAwEP0uE

+++++++++++++++++++++++

If something in this post sparks a question, stirs your curiosity, or makes you pause—I'd love to hear from you. As a coach, I'm looking for Folks who yearn to be ethically centered leaders and changemakers; the spiritually curious who are navigating complexity and seeking clarity. If you want to learn more or explore whether coaching with me, reach out at pauloppedahl@gmail.com or visit http://www.pauloppedahl.com.

She Said My Preaching Was Too Political

 

It happened after worship, in that familiar space where handshakes and polite smiles often serve as buffers for deeper conversations. She approached me with courage and kindness, but also with some consternation. "Your preaching is getting too political," she said.

I've heard this before. Many of us have who strive to preach the Gospel in its fullness. But this time, I paused, considering the weight of her words. Was it truly political, or was it something else? Was it that the message, rooted in the words of Jesus, had landed in a tender place, a place where wounds—unspoken and unacknowledged—began to surface?

Collective Moral Injury and the Gospel’s Unsettling Power

Moral injury is a term often used in military and psychological circles. It describes the internal conflict that arises when a person is confronted with the reality that they have either participated in, or remained complicit in, actions that contradict their deepest moral convictions. But moral injury isn’t confined to individuals. It is collective, societal, systemic. It festers in silence until something—a moment, a word, a sermon—exposes the wound.

When Jesus stands on the mount and proclaims, Blessed are the poor in spirit… blessed are the meek… blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness… blessed are the peacemakers…—he is not offering pleasantries. He is confronting the world as it is and declaring what it is meant to be. This is not politics. This is truth. And truth has a way of making us uncomfortable, especially when it disrupts the comforts of entitlement.

The Entitled Blood Cells Fighting Off the Infection

If moral injury is an unhealed wound, then messages like the Beatitudes act as a kind of spiritual antiseptic. They sting. They bring to the surface the ways in which we have failed to live up to the call of justice, mercy, and love. They reveal the infection beneath our illusions of righteousness.

And like an immune system resisting an invading force, there is a reflexive reaction—entitled blood cells rushing to neutralize the perceived threat. Defensiveness. Deflection. Accusations of being “too political.” Anything to avoid acknowledging that something within us is festering and in need of healing.

The Work of Healing, Not Comforting

If preaching were merely about comfort, it would stay in the realm of vague encouragements and personal piety. But the Gospel calls us beyond comfort to transformation. Jesus’ words demand something of us. They call us to look at the wounds in ourselves and in the world, to acknowledge them, and to seek healing—not just for ourselves, but for the whole body of humanity.

So when someone says my preaching is “too political,” I wonder if what they are really saying is: This message is making me uncomfortable. It is reminding me of something I would rather not see. It is pressing against a wound that I have not yet allowed to heal.

And perhaps, just perhaps, that discomfort is the beginning of something new—a breaking open rather than a shutting down. An invitation rather than a rejection. The first step toward healing rather than another act of resistance.

Because, in the end, the Gospel does not come to soothe our entitlements. It comes to save us from them.

A Pastoral and Prophetic Call

For those of us who preach, teach, and walk alongside communities of faith, this is where our work deepens. People facing moral injury often double down, resisting the very transformation that could bring them healing. They may lash out, dismiss, or retreat into hardened certainty. Our call is not simply to push harder but to remain both prophetic and pastoral.

A prophetic voice speaks the truth with clarity and conviction. It names what is festering, no matter how much resistance it meets. But a pastoral presence tends to the wounded, even when they refuse to acknowledge their wounds. It offers grace without abandoning truth, patience without enabling avoidance.

We must hold both. To lean too far into prophecy without pastoral care risks alienation. To lean too far into comfort without prophetic truth risks complacency. Instead, we stand in the tension—offering words that unsettle and a presence that assures.

The work is slow. The resistance is real. But transformation is possible. Healing is possible. And the Gospel remains what it has always been: good news, even when it stings before it saves.

So, Where Do We Go from Here?

What happens when the symptoms of doubling down aren’t just personal but systemic? When they are reflected in the way people vote, in the policies enacted, in leadership that acts out of its own unresolved moral injury? These are not abstract theological musings; they are urgent, real-world crises that shape the communities we serve.

I don’t have the answers. But I do believe that the answers are within us. Within you. Within each of us as we seek to continue to become our best selves in the face of this challenge. The question we must ask ourselves is this: How do we lead in a way that is true to our values? How do we reflect the joy of the Gospel while standing firm in the conviction that we can do human better, that we must do human better?[i]

As leaders, our goal is not merely to name these wounds but to be in shared conversation and commitment with the congregations we serve. Our congregations, as individual parts of the broader body of Christ, must be a beacon—especially now—loving the world into its better self. Isn’t this God's desire for us? We cannot do this alone. It is too sacred. How do we embody the Gospel not only in word but in practice, in policies, in how we extend love and justice beyond the walls of our churches?

This is not simply a call to debate. It’s an invitation to a difficult and deeper conversation, to mutual discernment, to a shared journey of faith and transformation. It is essential. Let us have it—with each other, with our communities, and with all who are willing to step into the tension and wrestle with what it means to truly live the Gospel in today’s world.

---

[i] “Do human better” is a tagline first shared with me by my ELCA Lutheran colleague, Rev. Nathan Swenson-Reinhold. He gets all the credit for that one!

++++++++++++++++++++++

If something in this post sparks a question, stirs your curiosity, or makes you pause—I'd love to hear from you. As a coach, I'm looking for Folks who yearn to be ethically centered leaders and changemakers; the spiritually curious who are navigating complexity and seeking clarity. If you want to learn more or explore whether coaching with me, reach out at pauloppedahl@gmail.com or visit http://www.pauloppedahl.com.

An Essay by Michael Gerson

https://unsplash.com/@priscilladupreez

The following is a piece titled “The return of America’s cruelest passion” by Michael Gerson (President George W. Bush's chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006). It was originally published in The Washington Post on August 1, 2019. The piece addresses President Trump’s racially charged comments and reflects on the enduring legacy of white supremacy in the United States. Now, with his 2nd term in full swing, it is as if his reelection has vindicated his worst cruelties.

—————————————-

I had fully intended to ignore President Trump’s latest round of racially charged taunts against an African American elected official, and an African American activist, and an African American journalist and a whole city with a lot of African Americans in it. I had every intention of walking past Trump’s latest outrages and writing about the self-destructive squabbling of the Democratic presidential field, which has chosen to shame former vice president Joe Biden for the sin of being an electable, moderate liberal.

But I made the mistake of pulling James Cone’s 'The Cross and the Lynching Tree' off my shelf — a book designed to shatter convenient complacency. Cone recounts the case of a white mob in Valdosta, Ga., in 1918 that lynched an innocent man named Haynes Turner. Turner’s enraged wife, Mary, promised justice for the killers. The sheriff responded by arresting her and then turning her over to the mob, which included women and children. According to one source, Mary was 'stripped, hung upside down by the ankles, soaked with gasoline, and roasted to death. In the midst of this torment, a white man opened her swollen belly with a hunting knife and her infant fell to the ground and was stomped to death.'

God help us. It is hard to write the words. This evil — the evil of white supremacy, resulting in dehumanization, inhumanity and murder — is the worst stain, the greatest crime, of U.S. history. It is the thing that nearly broke the nation. It is the thing that proved generations of Christians to be vicious hypocrites. It is the thing that turned normal people into moral monsters, capable of burning a grieving widow to death and killing her child.

When the president of the United States plays with that fire or takes that beast out for a walk, it is not just another political event, not just a normal day in campaign 2020. It is a cause for shame. It is the violation of martyrs’ graves. It is obscene graffiti on the Lincoln Memorial. It is, in the eyes of history, the betrayal — the re-betrayal — of Haynes and Mary Turner and their child. And all of this is being done by an ignorant and arrogant narcissist reviving racist tropes for political gain, indifferent to the wreckage he is leaving, the wounds he is ripping open.

Like, I suspect, many others, I am finding it hard to look at resurgent racism as just one in a series of presidential offenses or another in a series of Republican errors. Racism is not just another wrong. The Antietam battlefield is not just another plot of ground. The Edmund Pettus Bridge is not just another bridge. The balcony outside Room 306 at the Lorraine Motel is not just another balcony. As U.S. history hallows some causes, it magnifies some crimes.

What does all this mean politically? It means that Trump’s divisiveness is getting worse, not better. He makes racist comments, appeals to racist sentiments and inflames racist passions. The rationalization that he is not, deep down in his heart, really a racist is meaningless. Trump’s continued offenses mean that a large portion of his political base is energized by racist tropes and the language of white grievance. And it means — whatever their intent — that those who play down, or excuse, or try to walk past these offenses are enablers.

Some political choices are not just stupid or crude. They represent the return of our country’s cruelest, most dangerous passion. Such racism indicts Trump. Treating racism as a typical or minor matter indicts us."

— Michael Gerson

+++++++++++++++++++

If something in this post sparks a question, stirs your curiosity, or makes you pause—I'd love to hear from you. As a coach, I'm looking for Folks who yearn to be ethically centered leaders and changemakers; the spiritually curious who are navigating complexity and seeking clarity. If you want to learn more or explore whether coaching with me, reach out at pauloppedahl@gmail.com or visit http://www.pauloppedahl.com.

From Jim Crow to Anti-Trans Laws: When Fear Fuels Resistance, Can Truth Bring Healing? (A More Compassionate Draft)

1. Fear, not righteousness, drives the backlash against DEI and LGBTQ+ rights—what are they really afraid of?

2. History repeats itself: From Jim Crow to anti-trans laws, resistance to inclusion follows the same playbook.

3. Can we hold power accountable while also recognizing the fear and moral injury fueling this resistance?

The anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) movement is not merely a rejection of progressive ideals—it is the manifestation of deep-seated fear and insecurity among those who have long benefited from an unspoken social contract that favored them. Many of these individuals, especially those in positions of historical power, feel a profound sense of loss, as though the ground beneath them is shifting. And in some ways, it is. The world they knew, one that promised them a head start simply for being who they were, is crumbling. Their resistance to change is not born from strength but from uncertainty, from the realization that they are being asked to confront both history and themselves in ways they never had to before.

It is easy to dismiss these reactionary forces as mere bullies grasping at their fading influence, and to some extent, that is true. But behind the bluster, many of them are experiencing what we might call a collective trauma—a form of cultural and generational PTSD, a reckoning with a reality that tells them their understanding of fairness, of merit, of success, was built on selective blindness. For generations, privilege was not something to be questioned; it was simply the air they breathed. Now, as society exhales, they feel suffocated.

This is not an excuse for their behavior. Those who lash out at DEI initiatives or fixate on policing gender identity are still doing real harm. But if we are to effectively counteract their resistance, we must understand it. Fear is a powerful motivator, and when left unchecked, it metastasizes into reactionary politics, bad-faith arguments, and policies designed to halt progress. These individuals are not merely defending tradition; they are defending a version of history that never fully accounted for the suffering, exclusion, and systemic oppression of others.

To understand how we arrived at this moment, we must recognize that the push for diversity, equity, and inclusion is a response to centuries of systemic exclusion. The United States was founded on principles that professed equality, but in practice, those rights were reserved for white, landowning men. The Civil War ended slavery, but Reconstruction was quickly undone by Jim Crow laws, keeping Black Americans in a state of subjugation. Women fought for suffrage, but full participation in society remained elusive for decades. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s dismantled legal segregation, yet economic and social disparities persisted.

In response to these injustices, affirmative action and DEI initiatives were designed not to provide unfair advantages but to correct historical imbalances. These policies sought to acknowledge that privilege is often inherited, that access to quality education, professional networks, and financial security is not distributed equally. DEI programs emerged as a way to create pathways for those who had been systematically excluded, ensuring that opportunity was not merely theoretical but real.

Yet, every effort toward equity has been met with backlash. After the Civil Rights Act, opponents of integration framed their resistance as a defense of "states' rights." When affirmative action policies sought to diversify universities and workplaces, detractors claimed that meritocracy was being undermined—conveniently ignoring that for centuries, race and gender had been criteria for exclusion rather than inclusion.

Today's anti-DEI movement is simply the latest iteration of this historical resistance. It cloaks itself in the rhetoric of fairness while working to reinforce barriers that have long advantaged one group over others. It weaponizes resentment, urging those who have historically held power to see themselves as victims when the playing field begins to level. This movement relies on a fundamental distortion: the idea that efforts to expand opportunity for marginalized groups must come at the expense of those who have benefited from privilege.

Nowhere is this desperate fear more apparent than in the attacks on the LGBTQIA+ community, particularly the anti-transgender movement. Many of these individuals, so accustomed to a rigid gender binary and a narrowly defined concept of identity, feel destabilized by the growing acceptance of trans and nonbinary people. Their reaction is not based on genuine moral conviction but on a primal discomfort with change. They see gender-affirming care, inclusive language, and policies protecting LGBTQIA+ individuals as threats—not to their well-being, but to the certainty of a world they thought was immovable.

This reactionary fear manifests in policies banning trans athletes from competition, prohibiting gender-affirming care, and censoring discussions of LGBTQIA+ identities in classrooms. They claim to be protecting children, but their policies make life less safe, less welcoming, and more dangerous for young people navigating their identities. They justify their hostility under the guise of tradition, but what they are truly defending is an identity crisis of their own—one they refuse to confront.

So, how do we speak truth to power while recognizing the wounds—self-inflicted and historical—that fuel their resistance? First, we must continue to hold them accountable. Fear does not absolve harm. But second, we must also recognize that if we are to create a better world, we must engage with those who are afraid, not simply with contempt but with an insistence that there is another way forward.

This does not mean pandering to bigotry or excusing discrimination. It means articulating a vision of justice that does not rely solely on punitive measures but also on education, exposure, and transformation. It means finding ways to challenge their assumptions while demonstrating that the world they fear—a world where diversity is embraced, where equity is pursued, where inclusion is the norm—is not a world where they will be erased, but one where they too can be free from the constraints of outdated hierarchies.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion are not threats. They are aspirations for a society that values all its members, not just the ones who have historically wielded power. The backlash against DEI and LGBTQIA+ rights isn’t about protecting freedom or fostering unity—it’s about fear. Fear that the world is becoming more just. Fear that opportunities are no longer reserved for the privileged few. Fear that their advantage is slipping away, and with it, the illusion that their success was purely a product of their own hard work.

The question we must ask is this: Do we want to be a society that protects entitlement at the expense of fairness? Or do we have the courage to build a future where opportunity is not hoarded but shared? The choice is clear. The only ones who should be afraid are those who refuse to evolve. But perhaps, if we show them that evolution is not extinction, they might finally begin to listen.

++++++++++++++++

If something in this post sparks a question, stirs your curiosity, or makes you pause—I'd love to hear from you. As a coach, I'm looking for Folks who yearn to be ethically centered leaders and changemakers; the spiritually curious who are navigating complexity and seeking clarity. If you want to learn more or explore whether coaching with me, reach out at pauloppedahl@gmail.com or visit http://www.pauloppedahl.com.

From Jim Crow to Anti-Trans Laws: The Same Old Playbook of the Frightened Few

The anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) movement is not about fairness, meritocracy, or protecting American values—it’s the desperate flailing of frightened little men who fear losing their inherited entitlement. Wrapped in the language of tradition and free speech, their crusade is not about preserving excellence but about safeguarding privilege. They see a world that is changing, one that no longer bends to their unearned advantages, and instead of adapting, they lash out, demonizing efforts to level the playing field as dangerous and divisive.

The irony is striking: those who decry DEI as a form of “reverse discrimination” have no trouble embracing systems that have long excluded women, people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others from full participation in society. They cry foul at the prospect of being evaluated on a more even footing, fearing that without systemic head starts, they may not be able to compete. Their reactionary response isn’t about ensuring fairness—it’s about maintaining a status quo that has always worked in their favor.

To understand how we arrived at this moment, we must recognize that the push for diversity, equity, and inclusion is a response to centuries of systemic exclusion. The United States was founded on principles that professed equality, but in practice, those rights were reserved for white, landowning men. The Civil War ended slavery, but Reconstruction was quickly undone by Jim Crow laws, keeping Black Americans in a state of subjugation. Women fought for suffrage, but full participation in society remained elusive for decades. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s dismantled legal segregation, yet economic and social disparities persisted.

In response to these injustices, affirmative action and DEI initiatives were designed not to provide unfair advantages but to correct historical imbalances. These policies sought to acknowledge that privilege is often inherited, that access to quality education, professional networks, and financial security is not distributed equally. DEI programs emerged as a way to create pathways for those who had been systematically excluded, ensuring that opportunity was not merely theoretical but real.

Yet, every effort toward equity has been met with backlash. After the Civil Rights Act, opponents of integration framed their resistance as a defense of “states’ rights.” When affirmative action policies sought to diversify universities and workplaces, detractors claimed that meritocracy was being undermined—conveniently ignoring that for centuries, race and gender had been criteria for exclusion rather than inclusion.

Today’s anti-DEI movement is simply the latest iteration of this historical resistance. It cloaks itself in the rhetoric of fairness while working to reinforce barriers that have long advantaged one group over others. It weaponizes resentment, urging those who have historically held power to see themselves as victims when the playing field begins to level. This movement relies on a fundamental distortion: the idea that efforts to expand opportunity for marginalized groups must come at the expense of those who have benefited from privilege.

Nowhere is this desperate fear more apparent than in the attacks on the LGBTQIA+ community, particularly the anti-transgender movement. The same fragile egos that rail against diversity in workplaces and schools also fixate on policing gender identity and sexual orientation. Their anxiety manifests in reactionary policies banning trans athletes from competition, prohibiting gender-affirming care, and censoring discussions of LGBTQIA+ identities in classrooms. They cling to rigid definitions of gender and family, not out of genuine moral conviction, but because acknowledging the existence of trans and nonbinary people shatters their fragile, simplistic worldview.

These same frightened little men who decry affirmative action as unfair are the ones obsessed with controlling what bathrooms people use and what pronouns they claim. Their efforts to erase LGBTQIA+ people mirror the same strategies of exclusion used against women and people of color throughout history. They claim to be protecting children, but their policies make life less safe, less welcoming, and more dangerous for young people navigating their identities.

The anti-trans movement is not about fairness or safety—it is about fear. Fear of change. Fear that the rigid societal structures that have historically benefited them are crumbling. Fear that they must finally reckon with the fact that their identity, their beliefs, and their dominance in society are not the universal default, but just one among many lived experiences. And that terrifies them.

But let’s be clear: diversity, equity, and inclusion are not threats. They are aspirations for a society that values all its members, not just the ones who have historically wielded power. The backlash against DEI and LGBTQIA+ rights isn’t about protecting freedom or fostering unity—it’s about fear. Fear that the world is becoming more just. Fear that opportunities are no longer reserved for the privileged few. Fear that their advantage is slipping away, and with it, the illusion that their success was purely a product of their own hard work.

The question we must ask is this: Do we want to be a society that protects entitlement at the expense of fairness? Or do we have the courage to build a future where opportunity is not hoarded but shared? The choice is clear. The only ones who should be afraid are those who refuse to evolve.

++++++++++++++++++++

If something in this post sparks a question, stirs your curiosity, or makes you pause—I'd love to hear from you. As a coach, I'm looking for Folks who yearn to be ethically centered leaders and changemakers; the spiritually curious who are navigating complexity and seeking clarity. If you want to learn more or explore whether coaching with me, reach out at pauloppedahl@gmail.com or visit http://www.pauloppedahl.com.