🌈 "Homogeneity, Inequality, and Exclusion?" — Bustos Media President Questions the Anti-DEI Alternative

📻 Voice of Reason: Amador Bustos Brings Nuance to Tucson's DEI Discourse Amid Trump's DEI purge, a local media leader reminds us what's at stake for borderland communities

May 16, 2025

😽 Keepin’ It Simple Summary for Younger Readers
👧🏾✊🏾👦🏾

🌈 DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, which means making sure everyone gets a fair chance ⚖️. Right now, there's a big argument happening in America 🇺🇸 about whether DEI is good or bad. President Trump has created rules to stop DEI programs in government 🏛️, and many companies are following his lead 🏢.

But a local radio station owner named Amador Bustos asked an important question on Tucson radio 📻: if we don't want diversity, equity, and inclusion, does that mean we want everyone to be the same 🤔, things to be unfair 😣, and some people to be left out 🚫? He says that when people claim they only want to reward "merit," they often ignore how power, privilege, and bias affect who gets opportunities 🎯.

Most Americans still think DEI is important, especially people from different backgrounds 🌍. The debate matters to everyone in Tucson because our community has always been diverse, with many cultures and languages living together 🤝.

🗝️ Takeaways

🎙️ Amador Bustos, President of Bustos Media (which owns several Tucson stations, including 1030 AM "The Voice"), directly challenged anti-DEI rhetoric by asking if "homogeneity, inequality, and exclusion" are better alternatives.
👥 Bustos Media embodies diversity in practice, operating multiple stations in Tucson serving diverse linguistic and ethnic populations, demonstrating that diversity isn't just a value but a successful business model.
🏛️ President Trump has systematically targeted DEI through executive orders directing federal agencies to terminate diversity initiatives, with immediate impacts on the Department of Education and the State Department.
💼 Major corporations, including Target, Meta, Google's parent Alphabet, and PepsiCo, have begun dismantling DEI programs despite previously making public commitments following George Floyd's murder.
🤔 Bustos identified how "merit" becomes entangled with "four P words: power, privilege, preference, and prejudice," exposing the false dichotomy between diversity and meritocracy.
💰 Economically, discrimination has massive costs—a 2020 Citi study estimated that closing racial gaps would have added $16 trillion to the US economy since 2000.
⚔️ Legal challenges to anti-DEI executive orders continue, with mixed results—a recent federal court victory blocked Education Department restrictions. In contrast, an appeals court allowed other executive orders to be enforced.
📊 Public opinion remains largely supportive of DEI, with 56% of workers viewing diversity initiatives positively, including 78% of Black workers, 72% of Asian workers, and 65% of Hispanic workers.

Give a gift subscription

The DEI Dilemma: When "Merit" Meets Power, Privilege, and Politics

In the surreal circus of American political discourse, few acronyms have been transformed into villains as quickly as DEI. Once a hopeful framework for creating more balanced workplaces and institutions, "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" has morphed into a political piñata, bashed repeatedly by those desperately clinging to the status quo. But beneath the political theater lies a fundamental question worth exploring—one that was recently articulated with refreshing clarity by Amador Bustos, President of Bustos Media.

Bustos Media isn't just another corporate conglomerate parachuting into our communities—it's a rare specimen in America's homogenized media landscape: one of the few independent Hispanic-owned radio groups in the country. With a footprint stretching across five states (Oregon, Washington, California, Arizona, and Texas), the company has established a significant presence here in Tucson.

Their local empire includes KZLZ (including KZLZHD2), XHAZE, KTGV, KVOI, and KDRI, operated from their headquarters at 3222 S. Richey Avenue. Their flagship station 1030 AM "The Voice" delivers live local news and talk programming that actually acknowledges the existence of life south of the Rillito. Unlike the cookie-cutter corporate stations that carpet-bomb our airwaves with pre-packaged national content, Bustos Media's multilingual approach (broadcasting in Spanish, English, Russian, Vietnamese, Korean, and Chinese across their network) embodies the diversity they champion in their editorial content.

DEI Under Attack: The New Dirty Word

Qué lástima... It has become fashionable—no, mandatory—in certain political circles to treat the concept of DEI like toxic waste. As Bustos puts it, the acronym once meant to open doors has become "a dirty word in a flash." But his follow-up question cuts through the noise with surgical precision: "If DEI is such a toxic concept, let me ask if homogeneity, inequality, and exclusion are better options?"

The question lands with the weight of obvious truth. Because what exactly is the alternative to diversity, equity, and inclusion? Sameness, inequality, and exclusion? Is that truly the promised land the anti-DEI crusaders are marching toward?

Seriously, what's next? Will we start demonizing words like "kindness" and "cooperation" as radical leftist concepts?

In his recent editorial broadcast on 1030 The Voice, Bustos laid out a compelling case worth quoting at length:

"It has become fashionable to bash diversity, equity and inclusion. The acronym DEI became a dirty word in a flash. If DEI is such a toxic concept, let me ask if homogeneity, inequality and exclusion are better options. There were errors in the implementation of DEI, however this country was founded with the ideal of equality and justice for all.
We have been reciting those commitments in the Pledge of Allegiance since childhood. In order to justify the elimination of DEI, many folks bring up the concept of merit as the preferred substitute for determining advancement and upward mobility. The concept of merit is well and good, but it is also only an ideal, just like DEI, “merit” can also mean different things to different people.
You may say that someone or something is meritorious, but I may disagree. Unfortunately, merit selections are also made by humans, therefore it will inevitably be imperfect and have missteps. Part of the problem is that merit gets tangled with four P words, power, privilege, preference and prejudice.
Accredible meritocracy will only exist when humans no longer lust for power and privilege. It seems we are a long way from that state of human perfection and lack of bias. In the drumbeat of partisan politics, today's advocates for meritocracy are using it as a disguise by those in power to maintain their privileges and preferences. They artificially and arbitrarily make the ideal DEI seem hateful and merit seem nice.
The more thoughtful approach is to pursue both ideals. The Federal Communication Commission grants our radio licenses to operate in the public interest, convenience and necessity. At this point in time, there is no greater necessity than to have civil conversations on topics of public importance like these issues of merit and DEI."

When I first heard Bustos's editorial while driving along Oracle Road, I nearly pulled over to applaud. Finally, someone willing to name the elephant in the room—the transparent hypocrisy of the anti-DEI movement. Bustos isn't delivering fiery rhetoric or apocalyptic warnings. He's simply asking logical questions that expose the absurdity of demonizing diversity.

This kind of clear-eyed perspective is exactly what we're missing in the national discourse, where "owning the libs" has replaced actual debate about how to improve our institutions.

The Merit Mirage

Merit. It sounds so pure, so objective, so American. Work hard. Follow the rules. Achieve success. But as Bustos astutely points out, merit is "also only an ideal, just like DEI." This fundamental insight exposes the false dichotomy being constructed between "discriminatory DEI" and "objective merit."

The uncomfortable truth is that merit assessments don't happen in a vacuum. They occur in systems built by humans with their own biases, preferences, and blind spots. Merit becomes entangled with what Bustos identifies as "four P words: power, privilege, preference, and prejudice."

How convenient that those who've benefited most from existing power structures suddenly develop an almost religious fervor for "merit-based" systems right when historically excluded groups start getting a foothold.

Merit-based advancement has always been the ideal in America. But the ideal has never matched reality. The playing field was never level, the starting lines never equal, the judges never truly impartial. The fantasy of a pure meritocracy requires "human perfection and lack of bias"—qualities in tragically short supply throughout human history.

For those of us living in the borderlands of Southern Arizona, this isn't abstract philosophy—it's lived experience. How many brilliant minds in South Tucson never got their shot because the "merit" system was designed without them in mind? How many of our neighbors found doors mysteriously closed despite their qualifications? The system doesn't just happen to produce unequal results generation after generation by accident.

The Trump Administration's War on DEI

The election of Donald Trump to a second term has transformed anti-DEI sentiment from cultural grievance to federal policy. Within hours of his inauguration on January 20, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14151, "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing," directing federal agencies to terminate DEI offices, positions, programs, and initiatives "to the maximum extent allowed by law."

Nothing says "making America great again" like systematically dismantling efforts to make workplaces fair and inclusive. What's next on the chopping block? Wheelchair ramps? Fire exits? Clean drinking water?

This was quickly followed by a second executive order, "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," targeting DEI in both the public and private sectors. As civil rights advocates explained, these orders aim to "chill and prohibit lawful efforts to advance equal opportunity" by "spreading disinformation and distorting federal laws."

The U.S. Department of Education wasted no time implementing these directives, removing "hundreds of guidance documents, reports, and training materials" that mentioned DEI and placing employees who led such initiatives on paid administrative leave. They also announced the cancellation of DEI training and service contracts worth over $2.6 million.

So, let's get this straight: $2.6 million for programs promoting fairness and inclusion is "wasteful spending," but $15 billion for a partial border wall that doesn't work is fiscal responsibility? Make it make sense.

Just last month, Trump extended this purge to the State Department, signing a memorandum to remove "Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility" from Foreign Service tenure and promotion criteria. The irony of hampering the diplomatic corps' ability to reflect America's diversity while representing us globally seems lost on this administration.

For those keeping score at home, this means our government is now officially against the radical agenda of:

Diversity (having different kinds of people)
Equity (treating people fairly)
Inclusion (making sure everyone can participate)
Accessibility (ensuring people with disabilities can access services)

I must have missed the campaign slogan: "Make America Homogeneous, Unfair, Exclusive, and Inaccessible Again." Didn't fit on the hat, I guess.

The Corporate Retreat

The private sector, ever sensitive to political winds, has begun dismantling DEI initiatives as well. Major companies like Target, Meta (parent company of Facebook and Instagram), Google's parent company Alphabet, and PepsiCo have scaled back or eliminated their diversity programs. Target ended its "Belonging at the Bullseye" strategy established after George Floyd's murder and withdrew from the Human Rights Campaign's annual diversity index. PepsiCo abandoned goals for minority representation in management and supplier positions.

This corporate retreat represents a stark reversal from the surge in DEI commitment following Floyd's murder, when chief diversity and inclusion officer roles grew by nearly 170% between 2019 and 2022, according to LinkedIn data.

Remember when these same corporations were falling over themselves to post black squares on Instagram and declare that "Black Lives Matter"? Turns out their commitment to equality lasted about as long as a Tucson snowfall.

The speed with which these companies abandoned their DEI initiatives reveals the superficial nature of their commitment. When racial justice was trending, they were all in. When the political winds shifted, principles evaporated faster than monsoon puddles in August.

For workers from marginalized groups, this whiplash is all too familiar—a taste of progress followed by the bitter reminder that their inclusion was always conditional, always subject to the comfort level of those in power.

What's Really At Stake?

The assault on DEI obscures what's truly at risk. As Bustos Media demonstrates through its own practices, diversity isn't just a moral imperative—it's good business. The company proudly serves "a diverse linguistic and ethnic population" with stations broadcasting in Spanish, English, Russian, Vietnamese, Korean, and Chinese.

Here in Tucson, one of North America's oldest continuously inhabited regions, diversity isn't some abstract HR concept—it's our daily reality. Our community has been multilingual and multicultural since before the United States existed. Our strength comes from the blending of Indigenous, Mexican, European, African, and Asian influences that shape our food, architecture, language, and traditions.

When politicians rail against "diversity," are they even aware they're attacking the fundamental character of the American Southwest? Or is that precisely the point?

Meaningful diversity initiatives are strategies to equalize opportunities for groups who face systemic disadvantages. They might include broader recruitment efforts, focusing on necessary skills rather than irrelevant credentialing, or ensuring healthcare providers can effectively treat patients from all backgrounds. At their core, they strive to ensure no one is excluded or treated unfairly.

The economic cost of inequality is staggering. A 2020 Citi study estimated that closing racial gaps in wages, education, and lending would have added $16 trillion to the U.S. economy since 2000. This figure undermines the false narrative that DEI is merely about "woke" politics rather than economic opportunity and growth.

Sixteen trillion dollars. That's not a typo. Discrimination isn't just morally wrong—it's economically stupid. But apparently, some would rather have a poorer America than one where everyone gets a fair shot.

For families in Tucson's south and west sides, in Barrio Hollywood and Barrio Anita, in communities like South Park and Dunbar Springs, these aren't academic debates. The systematic disinvestment in our neighborhoods, the crumbling infrastructure, the environmental racism—these are the real-world consequences of exclusion. DEI initiatives represent one modest attempt to begin addressing these historical and ongoing injustices.

The Merit-DEI Balance

Bustos offers a sensible path forward: "The more thoughtful approach is to pursue both ideals." Merit and diversity need not be adversaries. In fact, they work best in tandem.

True merit can only be assessed when opportunities are equitable and the full range of potential talent has access to the table. Conversely, diversity without merit standards risks tokenism and undermines the very excellence it seeks to enhance.

It's almost like complex social problems require nuanced solutions rather than sound bites and executive orders. Who would have thought?

As Bustos concludes, "The Federal Communication Commission grants our radio licenses to operate in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. At this point in time, there is no greater necessity than to have civil conversations on topics of public importance like these issues of merit and DEI."

This call for civil conversation feels almost radical in our current climate, where shouting matches have replaced dialogue and political tribalism trumps critical thinking. But it's precisely what we need—especially here in the borderlands, where the consequences of division are particularly acute.

The Legal Battlefield

The Trump administration's anti-DEI crusade hasn't gone unchallenged. The city of Baltimore and numerous civil rights organizations filed lawsuits arguing the executive orders represent unconstitutional overreach. In a significant development last month, an appeals court lifted a block on the orders, allowing them to be enforced while litigation continues.

Meanwhile, educators won a preliminary victory when a federal judge blocked the Department of Education's February 14 "Dear Colleague" letter that threatened to withhold federal funding from educational institutions with diversity programs. The court found the directive contradicted legal protections for academic freedom and violated constitutional rights.

When judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents agree that your anti-DEI crusade has gone too far, maybe it's time to reconsider your approach.

These legal battles highlight an important truth: presidential power has limits. The Constitution, federal statutes, and decades of jurisprudence create guardrails that even the most determined administration cannot simply erase. When executive overreach threatens fundamental rights, the courts remain a crucial check on power.

These legal developments provide critical breathing room for Tucson's educational institutions—from TUSD to Pima Community College to the University of Arizona. They can continue their diversity and inclusion efforts while the courts sort out the constitutional questions at stake.

The View from the Borderlands

Here in southern Arizona, we live at the intersection of cultures, histories, and identities. Our borderland existence makes abstract debates about diversity concrete and immediate. When politicians rail against DEI, they're not just attacking an acronym—they're rejecting the lived reality of our communities.

Walk through Armory Park, stroll along South 12th Avenue, visit Mission San Xavier del Bac, or shop at the Food City on 22nd Street—you'll experience the beautiful diversity that defines our region. This isn't some recent innovation or radical agenda. It's who we are and have always been.

The irony is palpable: the very politicians who claim to defend "traditional American values" are attacking the diverse, multicultural reality that has defined the Southwest for centuries.

For Indigenous people and Chicanos, the DEI debate isn't academic. We've witnessed generations of "merit-based" systems that somehow always seem to favor the same groups while excluding others. We've seen how "objectivity" can be weaponized to maintain existing power structures. And we've experienced firsthand the transformative power of spaces that genuinely value diversity, equity, and inclusion.

When the Tucson Unified School District's Mexican American Studies program was dismantled a decade ago, we saw how "merit" could be cynically invoked to eliminate curriculum that empowered marginalized students. The program's success—higher graduation rates, increased college attendance, improved test scores—didn't matter to those who found its very existence threatening.

The Indigenous vision of community doesn't separate merit from inclusion—it recognizes that our collective strength comes from honoring the unique gifts of all our relations. This wisdom predates corporate DEI initiatives by millennia. Perhaps instead of abandoning DEI, we should deepen our understanding of it through Indigenous perspectives.

Finding Hope Amid the Backlash

Despite the current climate, there are reasons for optimism. Public opinion remains largely supportive of diversity initiatives. According to a 2023 Pew Research survey, 56% of workers say focusing on increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion at work is mainly a good thing. Only 16% view it negatively.

Support for DEI varies along demographic and political lines, with 78% of Black workers, 72% of Asian workers, and 65% of Hispanic workers viewing DEI positively. Among Democrats, 78% support DEI initiatives, compared to 30% of Republicans. These numbers suggest the current backlash represents political opportunism rather than a genuine shift in American values.

The majority of Americans still believe in fairness and inclusion. That's not just comforting—it's galvanizing. We're not fighting against the tide of history; we're swimming with it, even as powerful forces try to push us back.

Moreover, the legal challenges to the anti-DEI executive orders remind us that presidential actions have limits. The Constitution and federal civil rights laws provide guardrails that even the most determined administration cannot simply erase.

Here in Tucson, we've faced waves of anti-immigrant sentiment, attacks on ethnic studies, and attempts to erase our cultural heritage before. Each time, our community has responded with resilience, creativity, and solidarity. The current assault on DEI will be no different.

Organizations like LULAC, the Arizona Center for Empowerment, Chicanos Por La Causa, and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe continue their work promoting equity and inclusion despite federal hostility. Local businesses, arts organizations, and media outlets like Bustos Media demonstrate that diversity isn't just a value to promote but a reality to embrace.

How to Stay Engaged

In times of political reaction, individual and community action become even more crucial. Here are ways to support diversity, equity, and inclusion in your own spheres:

Support diverse local media: Tune in to Bustos Media stations like 1030 AM "The Voice" that provide platforms for perspectives often marginalized in mainstream discourse.
Engage with local politics: Attend school board meetings, city council sessions, and community forums where decisions about local DEI initiatives are made.
Support diverse businesses: Put your money where your values are by patronizing businesses owned by people from underrepresented groups, especially along corridors like South 12th Avenue, South 6th Avenue, East 22nd Street, and Grande Avenue.
Speak up: Advocate for inclusive practices in your workplace, schools, and community organizations. Be the voice that asks, "Who's missing from this table?"
Vote in local elections: School board members, county supervisors, and city council representatives often have more direct impact on DEI in your community than national officials.
Build coalitions: Connect with organizations working to preserve and advance equity initiatives, especially those led by directly affected communities.

The attack on DEI may be fierce, but it's only the latest chapter in America's ongoing struggle to live up to its founding ideals. As Dr. King reminded us, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Our job is to keep bending it, especially when powerful forces are pulling in the opposite direction.

Here in the borderlands, we have centuries of experience navigating cultural crossroads, building bridges between traditions, and creating communities that honor diversity. That wisdom isn't a liability—it's exactly what our divided nation needs right now.

Get 7 day free trial

Your support makes this independent journalism possible. Please consider subscribing to Three Sonorans Substack to help us continue providing analysis and perspectives from the borderlands that you won't find in corporate media. For less than the cost of a burrito at El Güero Canelo, you can ensure that our community's stories are told by those who actually live here, not parachute journalists or algorithm-driven content farms.

Leave a comment below: What DEI initiatives have you seen make a positive difference in our Tucson community? How has the national backlash against diversity affected your workplace or educational institution?