In April 2026, WAPPP welcomed legal scholar Kenji Yoshino, the Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law at NYU School of Law and the director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging, as a keynote speaker at the Fairness and Meritocracy at Work conference. His latest book with co-author David Glasgow, How Equality Wins: A New Vision for an Inclusive America, presents a pragmatic roadmap for advancing equality in a rapidly changing legal and political landscape. WAPPP senior fellow Siri Chilazi spoke with Yoshino about the ideas in the new book.
Q: One of the central ideas in your book is the shift from “lifting” to “leveling.” What does that mean in practice?
A: “Lifting” strategies are what many people associate with traditional diversity efforts—giving preferences to historically marginalized groups to help them access opportunities. Think of it as building a ramp onto an uneven playing field. But after recent legal developments, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, those kinds of approaches have become increasingly vulnerable. “Leveling,” by contrast, focuses on the playing field itself. Instead of giving certain groups a boost, you remove systemic biases so that everyone competes on fair terms. That’s both legally safer and politically more durable. No court is going to object to removing bias from a system, and it’s also harder for critics to oppose fairness outright. In fact, this is one of the concepts that lands most powerfully with audiences around the country.
Q: What about people who fundamentally reject the premise of equality? How should advocates engage with them?
A: We draw on Susan Annunzio’s 20-60-20 framework here, as applied by our NYU colleague Dolly Chugh to diversity, equity, and inclusion. There is a small group firmly opposed to DEI (“the stuck 20” percent), a small group firmly committed to it (20 percent on the other side), and a large “middle 60” that’s persuadable. Strategically, it makes little sense to focus on the extremes because the real audience is the middle. So when debates arise, the goal isn’t to convince your opponent; it’s to speak to that middle audience, which is most of America. If the conversation is framed as “DEI vs. meritocracy,” many people will gravitate toward meritocracy. But if we clarify that our position is actually about fairness and true merit—and that the alternative often preserves hidden biases—then the middle tends to move in our direction.
Q: You argue that “the work of equality has to change in order to endure.” Besides the shift from lifting to leveling, what are the most important shifts that need to happen right now?
A: Another shift is the move from “cohorts” to “content.” Cohort-based approaches—programs restricted to specific demographic groups—are increasingly risky, but you can redesign those programs around mission instead of identity. For example, some law firms recently opened previously restricted fellowships to everyone, but kept the focus on advancing diversity in the legal profession. Applicants now need to demonstrate a commitment to that mission, regardless of their background, and everyone is welcome to apply. A related shift is from “cohorts” to “character.” Instead of granting benefits based on group membership, you evaluate individuals based on their experiences and contributions. The Supreme Court itself affirmed that individuals can discuss how aspects of their identity have shaped their lives. That allows organizations to consider diversity in a more individualized, nuanced way.
Lack of dissent makes allyship quite fragile. If people are only given slogans rather than encouraged to engage with complexity, they’re not equipped to defend those ideas in real-world conversations. Strong allies need to understand the nuances.
Kenji Yoshino, Author of 'How Equality Wins'
Q: Some of these changes seem like they could have been anticipated earlier, before the current moment of backlash. Why weren’t they?
A: There’s a practical explanation. As Stanford scholar Shelley Correll has pointed out, it’s much easier to make visible, symbolic changes—like adding one woman to an executive team—than to overhaul deeply entrenched systems like performance evaluations. The former delivers quick wins that can be hard to sustain; the latter requires backbreaking effort. The silver lining of the current backlash is that it pushes organizations away from those easier fixes and toward the more impactful structural changes. If you care about true meritocracy, you have to address how decisions are made—how people are evaluated, promoted, and rewarded.
Q: You also elevate the importance of allowing dissent within organizations. Why is that essential?
A: For both ethical and strategic reasons. When dissent is discouraged, people engage in what the economist Timur Kuran calls “preference falsification”: they go along publicly but disagree privately. That creates a false sense of consensus and eliminates an early warning system. You don’t realize your approach isn’t resonating until there’s backlash. There’s another risk, too: lack of dissent makes allyship quite fragile. If people are only given slogans rather than encouraged to engage with complexity, they’re not equipped to defend those ideas in real-world conversations. What happens when someone challenges you on the issue of trans women competing in women's sports? There are answers to that question, and strong allies need to understand the nuances, not just repeat talking points. Finally, if advocates of equality impose their own form of orthodoxy, it becomes harder to credibly defend free expression when it’s genuinely under threat. If I look at the speech restrictions that are occurring as a constitutional scholar, it is not the pro-DEI people who are trying to shut down speech by banning books, silencing comedians, and passing laws that dictate what professors can teach in the classroom.
Q: Finally, what is your message to those of us who continue to believe deeply in the work of equality?
A: Stay the course but adapt your methods. We describe this moment as an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. The legal constraints we’re facing are the irresistible force, and we—with our commitment to equality—are the immovable object. When these two collide, the object changes because the force has been absorbed rather than resisted. In other words, the object doesn’t move, it transforms. That’s what we need to do now: find new ways to express enduring values. After all, the United States is a country that endured slavery, discriminatory Jim Crow laws, legalized domestic violence, the disenfranchisement of women, the criminalization of LGBTQ+ people, and more. If we stay true to our values as the abolitionists of yore did with regard to slavery, there's no doubt in my mind that equality will prevail.