A newly published essay has reignited one of the most volatile debates in American public life: whether diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have come at the cost of young, white men’s opportunities in elite professions. Titled “The Lost Generation,” the article by Jacob Savage, published last week in Compact, has become the latest lightning rod in the United States’ intensifying culture wars.
Savage’s central claim is stark. Since DEI frameworks became institutionalised across universities, media organisations and corporations around 2014, he argues, young white men—particularly millennials—have been systematically excluded from entry-level and early-career roles in “prestige sectors” such as journalism, academia, television, film, technology, law and medicine. In his telling, DEI has not merely broadened representation, but actively displaced one demographic while leaving entrenched power structures untouched.
The article struck a political nerve almost immediately. JD Vance praised it publicly on X, writing that DEI was “a deliberate program of discrimination primarily against white men.” Donald Trump Jr., son of President Donald Trump, amplified the message by reposting Vance’s comments with emojis of approval—cementing the article’s place in the broader conservative pushback against DEI.
The numbers behind the argument
Savage supports his thesis with a mix of statistics and anecdotal evidence. In media, he argues that major newsrooms became majority female by 2019, with post-2020 hiring skewing further toward women and people of colour. He cites data suggesting The New York Times and The Washington Post crossed that threshold before the pandemic, while publications like The Atlantic shifted from 53% male and 89% white in 2013 to 36% male and 66% white in 2024. He also points to ProPublica and NPR, highlighting hiring patterns he says favour underrepresented groups.
In academia, Savage contends that while PhD output has remained relatively stable, tenure-track hiring of white men dropped sharply after DEI statements became part of faculty screening. At elite institutions such as Harvard University, he claims white men fell from 39% of humanities tenure-track roles in 2014 to 18% by 2023.
Television and film form another pillar of his case. Savage writes that white men accounted for roughly 60% of television writers in 2011, but only 12% of lower-level writers by 2024–25, citing anecdotal accounts of young men leaving the industry after repeated rejections. Similar patterns, he argues, appear in technology, where diversity reports show declining proportions of white men at companies like Google and Amazon, as well as in law and medicine.
A broader cultural claim
Beyond representation, Savage’s larger argument is philosophical: that DEI has undermined meritocracy and contributed to institutional decline—falling trust in media, deteriorating quality in entertainment, and eroding respect for academia. Crucially, he says, the burden has fallen not on “old white men” who dominate leadership, but on younger men trying to enter the system. “I don’t blame women or people of colour who took opportunities,” Savage writes. “The responsibility lies with the system that created this imbalance.”
This framing resonates strongly with the current political moment. President Trump has issued executive orders targeting DEI programmes across government and urged private institutions to follow suit. “The Lost Generation” has been seized upon as evidence that those policies are not only ideological, but corrective.
Critics push back
The article has also drawn sharp criticism. Analysts and progressive commentators question both Savage’s methodology and his focus on selective sectors. A rebuttal from People’s Policy Project cites US census data showing that white men remain the largest demographic group employed in “arts, design, entertainment, sports and media,” and that overall employment of white men in their thirties has risen between 2014 and 2024. Diversity reports from Amazon and Google, critics note, still list white males as the single largest cohort within their workforces.
Others argue that Savage’s use of the word “discrimination” ignores the historical context of slavery, segregation and systemic exclusion faced by Black Americans and other minorities. In a society where white men have long held disproportionate power, they say, reduced dominance does not equate to marginalisation.
A debate far from settled
What is clear is that “The Lost Generation” has tapped into a growing sense of alienation among some young men, while simultaneously fuelling backlash against diversity initiatives. Whether viewed as a warning about unintended consequences or as a selective reading of social change, the article has become a symbol of America’s deeper struggle to reconcile merit, representation and historical injustice.
As the Trump administration intensifies its campaign against DEI, and institutions reassess their hiring frameworks, the debate Savage reignited shows no sign of cooling. In a country already polarised along cultural lines, the question of who opportunity is for—and who it leaves behind—remains as contentious as ever.
