Transgender and gender diverse (TGD), Black, and Latinx communities have long borne a disproportionate share of the U.S. HIV epidemic, yet these same key demographics are continually underrepresented in national PrEP prescriptions. Black, Latinx, and TGD individuals are also more likely to be uninsured, meaning that a proposed federal program to cover PrEP for people without insurance could provide significant benefit to potential PrEP users from these populations. However, coverage of PrEP costs alone will not end disparities in uptake. This commentary provides additional context and recommendations to maximize effectiveness of a national PrEP program for TGD, Black, and Latinx populations in the US.

Much of the pivotal debate concerning the validity of affirmative action is situated in a legal context of defending or challenging claims that there may be broad societal gains from increased diversity. Race-conscious affirmative action policies originally advanced legal sanctions to promote racial equity in the United States. Today, increasingly detached from its historical context, defense or rejection of affirmative action is otherwise upheld to achieve diversity. A “diversity” rationale for affirmative action calls for increasing tolerance of the “other,” reducing negative stereotypes, and moderating prejudice as goals—all objectives that deviate from the former aim of race-targeted inclusion intended to resolve racial discrimination in employment and college admissions. Diversity policy provides a tapered defense for affirmative action, one detached from principles of justice and equity. The current article suggests that, despite the fact that the ostensible benefits of “racial inclusion as diversity” may be the remaining legal prop for affirmative action in the U.S., there is a need to consider whether diversity intrinsically can engender the benefits that affirmative action policy seeks to provide.