While at a conference with a friend, we discussed some of the talk about DEI that we'd been overhearing.
Much of it started off with defiance at the sudden federal governmental downfall of DEI programs thanks to President Trump, winding through bold statements that just because it's gone in the government doesn't mean it has to be gone elsewhere, ending with a sort of mournful promise that they will always stand for DEI because everyone should have an opportunity to succeed.1
I agree. Everyone should have an opportunity to succeed. And that is why I'm against DEI.
What is DEI, really?
DEI, that magical sludge of "diversity, equity, and inclusion," which, as you'll see, is not truly diverse in the way that matters, confuses people about the difference between equity and equality and uses inclusion as a way to push against a bullying system that does not really exist anymore, at least not in a systematized way. And if a problem isn't in the system, then the "solution" shouldn't be put into the system.
DEI has its roots in critical race theory, which, for simplification, is a tentacle of Marxism. It's a system where victim-oppressor claims are amplified, the victims rage against the machine and demand equal outcomes (not the same as equal opportunity), and in the end, we have made sure no one excels while culture, innovation, and productivity stagnate. It inevitably sets up the next cycle where victim and oppressor are reversed because when you only exist in those two states, you're always fighting. That's how Marxism thrives: keep the people fighting.
I suspect there are many vocal DEI proponents who don't understand where it comes from, are unwilling to delve into it, or are simply unable to find the courage to call it what it is. It takes real leadership to reject DEI in a sea of DEI proponents and instead insist that they will be leaders dedicated to equal opportunity with grace.2
It would only take a few leaders to do this before we start to see a shift because, whether people realize it or not, there's more agreement between the DEI and anti-DEI camps than they might realize. Here, we find the odd agreement between those for and those against DEI, for the most part.3
Let's take a closer look.
DEI and forced outcome vs. equal opportunity.
DEI, in brief, is an attempt at equity; it attempts to force an outcome.
This is important to grasp: for DEI, it's not enough to provide opportunity; it must ensure a particular outcome. It's only in that guaranteed realm of outcome that we can brag about what minority or intersectional categories make up our workforce, thinking that hard data proves we are not racists and are not a throwback to the Jim Crow era.
Those (like me) who are against DEI are not racists or misogynists but want to provide equal opportunity and let the outcome be up to the person's merit and the vagaries of life that God works through. We understand that we all get dealt a different hand of cards, and some of us play them better than others. Yet even the bad hand can still pull out a win.
Most of us understand that difficulties and hard work create their own reward aside from the obvious outcome; there's a sense of ownership of your life and confidence that you can adapt, learn, and achieve. It's why we love the underdog story. It's the pinnacle of reward. Think of all the books and movies where the lowly becomes the victor. Would that story still ring true if DEI had forced the end result? No. Being handed the end product without the necessary steps to get there shortchanges a person severely.
DEI folks might counter and say that well-qualified people aren't being provided enough chance to ever get to the opportunity and that they are simply leveling the playing field. But the playing field isn't meant to be level; the arduous climb is part of the process I just described. You build cardio up the hill, not on a flat surface. Leveling it based on diversity is no different than leveling it based on family connection or the college you graduated from being a get-in-free card. There is inequality of opportunity for every demographic if we honestly look at it.
People like me, who do not support DEI, see the leaps and bounds made in regard to fairness; we see the danger in going backward and retroactively punishing people based on a real or imagined history that picks victims and victors for punishment or reward. We believe that when given an opportunity—any opportunity—the outcome is significantly up to the person, not so much where they end up, but how they end up. Small opportunities can still beget huge outcomes. Small outcomes can still beget happiness and joy in life. Small lives make big changes in the future.
Forcing an outcome, however, puts people in a position to fail because they aren't equipped or have the experience required to do the job. It tells them the destination is what matters, not the life journey. This isn't fair to them, and it isn't fair to those who are more suited to the job. It also shortchanges the future, almost tampering with the timeline that was intended.
DEI is answering the question at the wrong time.
The question of DEI comes at the wrong point in a person's timeline, especially in their professional life. The lack of opportunities that set a person up to be less qualified at the moment of hire shouldn't be handled with a hammer at that moment but should be dealt with much earlier in their life.
What's going on in our public schools that some demographics and regions are churning out students so ill-prepared for work? Will we honestly deal with some of the cultural and educational standards that have created generations ill-equipped to work and life?
What have young people been told is a valid way to live and work that doesn't hold true in the real world?
If you feel like a certain demographic is underrepresented in your industry, do you know why, or are you just blaming a standard enemy? Do kids in school know about your industry, how to get into it, or even believe it is it possible? Does your industry need to focus more on providing resources and opportunities at a younger age if demographic diversity is important to it?
Opportunities are set in motion early on; waiting until the moment of hiring is too late. You will only end up with unqualified people, which is costly in every possible way.
DEI doesn't measure anything that matters.
Culture, experience, personality, and ethics matter more than skin color, sex, or felt identities. They have the most impact on how a person will fit into a team or organization and on how much experience a person will get in their progression onward and upward. Experience only comes with hard work, elbow grease, and suffering the small stuff on the way to the bigger stuff. Some cultures and personalities are geared for personal growth, while others are content to sit and stagnate.
In my experience in a variety of jobs and travels, the color of a person's skin is an indicator of very little. However, the culture the person comes from has a huge impact. I'm from a Scandinavian-German region of the country, and the work expectations I assume to be normal (as do others from my geographic region) are much higher than in some areas of the world. Work hard, work often, don't be lazy, then work some more. This isn't good or bad, but it can be a problem if someone from a different culture comes in. They might be seen as lazy or not meeting expectations even if they are doing what would be considered a good job in their own culture.
Their diversity of culture ("hey you guys, take a break once in a while") might be very useful. Or it might really hamper your productivity. Either way, that's a cultural diversity, not an outward diversity. Since skin color was often an indicator of where you were from (though less so in the age of people moving around and of the internet, where all culture is sort of flattening out into a monoculture), it was easy to use that to judge. That is fast fading as an indicator of regional cultural norms.
Those qualities—culture, experience, personality, ethics—aren't easily quantifiable, however. They fall into the mushy soft skills and soft qualities area that is tough to generate hard data on for filling out forms and surveys. Government grants, infographics, and proof to shareholders demand hard data, not attempts to measure something so unmeasurable. So, we choose to measure outward things in an attempt to signal corporate or individual virtue.
Better hard data could be found if we took the time to find correlations between the soft qualities and the related results. Employee turnover, HR complaints, internal promotion vs. external hiring rates, right to work and right to fire, demographic patterns of turnover, inventory or theft issues, poor productivity, project times, and expenses in certain areas—these are all things that, while they can't necessarily be proven to be directly caused by a soft quality, can be seen as a correlation, a pattern, or an indicator.
It is much easier, however, to look at skin, sex, and identity, the very surface things we should not be looking at and which will eventually for sure lead to issues within your workforce.
Hiring people who are not qualified except for externals or intersectional categories is a great way to create dissension, frustration, dislike, jealousy, and passive-aggressive behavior in otherwise good employees who didn't draw the magic card that is currently trending for attention. It puts into doubt the true qualifications of a person hired because they were truly a good fit for the job but unfortunately fall into one of the DEI categories that cause their co-workers to assume they were just a DEI hire. It adds work and headaches to employees who have to pick up the workload of an unqualified hire who isn't a good fit for the job.
You can spend endless amounts of time and money building a DEI program only to end up with high workforce dissatisfaction and turnover rates. You will have checked the "diversity" boxes, but your team, your output, your budget, and your customers will be a shambles because you built on a broken premise that goes against natural human motivations and understandings.
DEI misses out on the truly valuable form of diversity.
So does diversity make you stronger?
Forcing diversity is questionable since diversity has become so focused on outward and social identities instead of the more valuable diversity of thought. In my reading about DEI, I've found it odd that the articles in support of DEI that make a point of saying diversity can make you stronger nearly always include, as a benefit, the usefulness that comes from having a different point of view or ideas, when it comes to problem-solving.
Those two values—different ideas and viewpoints—have nothing to do with skin color or identity. Those are a diversity of thought, which DEI does not address in the way we implement it, though it often punishes it. Diverse thoughts come from different people, regardless of skin color, ethnicity, sex, or identity. DEI has the unfortunate effect of silencing diversity of thought. There is an inverse relationship between diversity of thought and how heavily DEI is forced and advocated for in an organization.
It's also worth noting that questioning limitless diversity is acceptable. Not every industry benefits from diversity in systems; we've all been in meetings where there's too much brainstorming and too many ideas, and no action ever happens. Too much diversity of thought can decimate the importance of cohesion, which makes all of the different parts of a car engine still willing to move in the same direction.
What do I hope to see?
I hope someday a leader will be willing to stand up at a conference and kill the sacred DEI cow in a way that allows its fans to take a positive step forward instead of remaining in the combative stance DEI requires.
I hope that in doing so, we can shift our focus on the right part of a person's developmental timeline, be honest about the gaps in education and understanding of the world around them, and ensure equal opportunity so that we don't have to force equity far down the road and hurt everyone.
I hope the obvious approach to filling jobs is to carefully think about requirements and a job description in terms of:
What must be. The skills and experience you must have and be able to do.
What should be. The skills and experience you will pick up if you work hard.
What could be. The opportunity that will open to you if you work hard.
The job description is what must be, and only people who truly meet the qualifications are considered.
What should be is an added bonus, but if an applicant doesn't have them, you should still consider them if they have those soft skills or qualities that will get them there (e.g., willingness to learn, hard worker, honesty).
The could be part isn't part of the hiring process, but it is in the back of your mind, as a leader, something you will do for that hire someday, a promise you make to yourself not to wimp out and hand a promotion or opportunity to someone less qualified due to nepotism or some other factor.
1 If you take federal money or hire based on affirmative action, you are going to have to face the new reality that DEI is likely over for you, at least for four years, and that giving it another name isn't fooling those people in your company or organization who will out you as the tide keeps turning. It is a broken and destructive idea, even if the reason you cling to it feels right. There are other ways to accomplish equal opportunity, though never through forced equity. DEI will, eventually, kill your organization.
2 Grace is important; it's where emotional intelligence accounts for personalities, situations, and taking a chance on a person's ability to grow and change. DEI is graceless and dehumanizing; it's a forced system that turns individual human beings into pegs that get crammed into holes. People become data points only.
3 Those heavily into the Marxist roots of DEI are the outliers in this conversation, as their motivation and desire do not overlap with what I'm going to discuss. On the other end of the spectrum are those who truly do hate people of certain races and view them as incapable simply because of race. These two extremes are excluded from this discussion because they have no overlap with a more reasonable approach. They are both destructive and, in that way, oddly, are similar.