SHRM’s recent announcement that Robby Starbuck will appear on the main stage of its inclusion conference, Blueprint, has prompted concern among many HR and DEI professionals. While SHRM frames this as opening up dialogue, the timing and context – especially given recent shifts in DEI law and policy – make the decision more controversial than simply provocative.

What We Know About the SHRM Decision

• SHRM, which for nearly three decades has hosted a DEI-oriented conference (formerly known as the Workplace Diversity Conference), rebranded the event in mid-2025, apparently moving away from explicit “equity” and “inclusion” language in its title.
• At Blueprint this October, Robby Starbuck, who has voiced strong anti-DEI and anti-LGBTQ+ views, is slated to share a stage with Van Jones. Many practitioners argue Starbuck lacks experience in HR, compliance, or law, yet will be given a high-visibility platform on an inclusion-oriented stage.
• Critics say this feels less like constructive debate and more like legitimizing a speaker whose positions many view as undermining DEI work and spreading harmful rhetoric.

• SHRM’s defense is that selecting Starbuck is part of “viewpoint diversity” – inviting both sides to foster dialogue. But many observers wonder whether the choice fosters thoughtful conversation or merely creates backlash and confusion.

The Legal & Policy Environment around DEI Is Changing

SHRM’s move comes at a moment of rapid change in federal and state policy on DEI. Some of the key legal shifts:

• Executive Orders: In January 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14173, which revoked certain longstanding federal mandates (for example, those under Executive Order 11246) that required federal contractors to take affirmative action based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics.
• Another order, EO 14151, ordered federal agencies to terminate “to the maximum extent allowed by law” equity-related grant contracts and DEI-related requirements.
• The Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have issued guidance warning that certain DEI policies may violate Title VII, especially if they involve preferential treatment based on protected characteristics, or if they result in discriminatory outcomes.
• State laws have also shifted. For example, Ohio Senate Bill 1 (2025) bans DEI-based hiring and enrollment in public universities in Ohio.

These changes have introduced uncertainty for organizations trying to navigate DEI commitments. What once were relatively standard expectations are now under scrutiny, constrained by new executive orders, court rulings, and state legislation.

Why the SHRM Decision Resonates Differently Now

Given the changing legal landscape, SHRM’s decision to give a platform to someone known for opposing many DEI initiatives is more than a matter of optics. Here are some of the implications:

• Legitimacy and Expertise: In a time when even established DEI programs are being questioned and regulated, credentials and track record matter. Critics argue that giving the main stage to someone without a history in HR, law, or compliance may weaken SHRM’s standing among professionals trying to follow best practices under evolving law.
• Signal vs. Substance: Rebranding the DEI conference, removing certain terms, and now inviting a polarizing figure suggests to some observers that SHRM is shifting not only how it frames inclusion but also where it stands on core issues of equity. Even if SHRM claims neutrality or openness, the signal sent may tilt in a direction that some members find discouraging.
• Risk & Compliance: As DEI policies are increasingly scrutinized under legal frameworks, organizations (including HR associations) are more cautious. When a speaker like Starbuck, who has criticized DEI, is given prominence, it may embolden or validate efforts to reduce or eliminate DEI practices in ways that legal guidance suggests may carry risk.
• Member Trust: HR professionals rely on SHRM for guidance, standards, and thought leadership. If members perceive SHRM is distancing itself from DEI, or giving voice to viewpoints many feel are harmful, trust could erode.

SHRM’s decision to invite Robby Starbuck to Blueprint is raising eyebrows. It isn’t simply about one speaker; it’s about what organizations like SHRM represent, especially in a moment of legal flux. As the rules around DEI evolve, professional bodies have the challenge of balancing openness with responsibility. How SHRM handles this moment could affect not only its reputation but also how DEI is practiced and protected in workplaces across the country.

Source: HR Brew