What is DEI, and is it a problem?
What you’ll read about in this post:
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: What do these mean and why is the country up in arms over them? Maybe this issue is being a little bit politicized.
Is “DEI” part of our American system of values? Our founding documents and history offer some insight.
Discrimination isn’t always a bad characteristic. In fact, we do discriminate quite frequently and this is beneficial. We need to learn when to discriminate.
“The price one pays for pursuing any profession or calling is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side.”
— James Baldwin
DEI … do we even know what these represent? Are they good, bad, or somewhere between?
News outlets, liberal and conservative, have reported at length about a three-letter acronym pervasive in our nation — the dreaded D-E-I. Diversity, equity, inclusion. These words evoke particular images in minds of Americans, depending on one’s political slant.
Conservatives made political hay out this issue in the 2024 Election, castigating DEI programs as one of the illnesses which plagues an otherwise great nation. The tactic aided Republicans in achieving results at the polls. They now have majorities in the House of Representatives, the Senate, and control the presidency. Did the Republicans accurately portray the concept of DEI? I don’t believe they did.
While Republicans are guilty of incorrectly describing DEI initiatives, the Democrats have done themselves no favors in advocating for the concept. They continually repeat pithy sayings that don’t accurately represent the heart of DEI. During the election season, Americans frequently heard statements like, “Diversity is our greatest strength.” Is this true? No, I don’t believe it is. Not entirely.
Diversity provides strength to our nation. Diversity of people translates to diversity of thought, problem solving, work, ideas, ethic. Yet, not all diversity of thought provides strength. We rightfully exclude particular ideas and ways of living from this nation. At some point, certain traits, ways o thinking, and other parts of our culture become unified as our culture. Diversity provides assistance in creating a viable workforce, policies, and ways of living, but this doesn’t preclude the concept from critique. Diversity for the sake of being diverse weakens organizations and political entities.
I believe most Americans see ‘diversity’ as the problem I just described. The political right bombards us with the idea that racial minorities or women receive jobs based on a quota system and not because they earned the job. The real measure of attaining diversity is to prevent discrimination based on the mere fact that someone is different in their race, religion, sex, or ethnicity.
While diversity, on its face, is a healthy pursuit, I have questions regarding ‘equity’ and ‘inclusion.’ To a degree, the value people place on these traits depends how we define those terms. With respect to equity, do we mean equality of opportunity for all citizens, or equal outcomes for all parties?
The term ‘inclusivity’ is designed to provide involvement for a variety of different groups. It connects to the idea of valuing diversity within our local communities and the nation. Including various types of people within an organization is never a bad concept, but I question the degree or extent to which we execute these policies. Some instances exist where excluding particular groups is the right course of action.
Is “DEI” as we know it a good concept? Maybe. There’s no firm definition which allows us to make a broad statement about it. Instead of labeling any policy as ‘DEI’ and inherently good or bad, one should examine the policy and decide if it is needed, helpful, and efficient.
Let’s check a few examples that might receive the label of “DEI”:
Federal law requires the inclusion of children with disabilities, to the greatest possible extent, in educational facilities with children who are not disabled.
Federal policy requires any company contracted with the federal government demonstrate affirmative actions that it has fair hiring practices.
Federal policy punishes any organization or business which discriminates on the basis of race, sex, or ethnicity.
These are all examples of policies which the nation has generally felt comfortable implementing.
We do see, however, the politicization of the phrase DEI to conjure images of quota systems which mandate a minority candidate receive a job. Often, critics of DEI suggest these minorities lack the qualifications necessary for the job. Unfortunately, opponents of DEI often suggest the hiring of minorities somehow weakens the nation.
For instance, President Trump implied that DEI hiring policies in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) led to a midair collision between a military helicopter and a jet over the Potomac River. At best, it was a premature and reductionistic explanation of a tragedy. But it’s far more likely that Trump’s statement served as another political grenade in the culture war.
No one should receive a job who isn’t qualified. No one should receive a job solely based on their race or sex or ethnicity. Accusations of impropriety or use of a quota system should receive the proper attention. Before we run to blame various groups of people for ‘taking our jobs’ and ‘weakening the country,’ the nation should see the evidence.
Making a case with facts and logic takes more time than a 15 second sound bite on the news or creating a meme. It requires people to think, and consider that maybe there’s more nuance and depth.
A history of ‘DEI’ principles
What if America had a history of diversity, equity, and inclusion? Our founding documents provide context regarding what the United States valued in terms of these topics.
In The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson asserted,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Jefferson’s concept of equality does not quite connect to the 21st century definition. His record regarding slavery is well-documented and historians believe Jefferson most likely explaining the equality among peers, or people of the same social standing. Regardless, the idea that even the same people in a social group held equal standing before the law was a revolutionary idea. Americans seized on this Enlightenment-based notion and have since expanded it.
Though the Founding Fathers did not write the US Constitution until 1787, this document reinforces notions regarding equality and inclusion.
The Constitution’s qualifications for holding a seat in the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Presidency, or federal judgeships are relatively simple. No one was excluded on the basis of sex, race, educational attainment, sexuality, or virtually any other category. The age and citizenship requirements exist as barriers only to ensure an officeholder’s priority rests with the United States.
Within the Senate, states receive an equal number of votes, regardless of geographical size, population, or financial condition. A group of sovereigns comprised the United States — equal in their dignity and importance in the nation.
Additionally, James Madison’s famous essay, Federalist 10, addressed the importance of diverse groups and thinking as a means of reducing the possibility for a tyrannical government. He wrote:
The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens …
A diverse set of views produces a natural check on the very tyranny conservatives fear the most.
The Bill of Rights produced a set of rights which govern anyone in the nation, regardless of citizenship status. Everyone here can express their thoughts or participate in a political demonstration. Anyone accused of a crime has the right to legal counsel and to confront his or her accuser. This is an equitable treatment of all humans.
Our nation also has a history of including more groups and preventing unreasonable discrimination. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that all states provide equal protection under the law. This, along with the 15th and 19th Amendments provided equality to minorities and women.
Congress passed legislation which brought various segments of society from the margins of society into the mainstream, including The Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Voting Rights Act of 1965, The Americans with Disabilities Act, and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
This nation contains a diverse set of people, who do add to the collective success of America — both as a political entity and as an idea. We should continue to act as inclusively as possible and deliver on the promise of equality. This should not be construed to mean that we haven’t made mistakes regarding who to include, or that there are not times where discrimination is warranted.
What if discrimination isn’t always a bad thing?
American society has a sordid history with the term ‘discrimination.’ Our history with slavery, Jim Crow laws, and otherwise prejudicial attitudes provokes a negative or almost visceral reaction to discrimination. This doesn’t account for the fact that we still discriminate every day in various ways which society has no problem supporting.
Businesses have a multitude of requirements regarding how their employees conduct themselves and they carefully pick and choose the people who represent them. Any workplace has a policy for appropriate attire, workplace conduct, office romances, and any number of other seemingly random policies. Companies want to create a certain ethos and attitude and no one bats an eye when a law firm mandates their attorneys dress professionally. Many employers screen candidates’ social media accounts to determine if an employee is the right fit. These are literally ways in which we discriminate.
On the individual level, we pick and choose the people to involve in our lives. We have preferences regarding the people with whom we befriend, date, marry, or otherwise congregate.
The real question is society’s determination of when a form of discrimination is acceptable. Within our personal relationships, the government doesn’t attempt to mandate we have diverse friends or include everyone in our lunch groups. But when we consider workplace standards and rights of the people, our standards must differ.
Employment status has a direct connection to a person’s ability to earn money and provide for themselves. Allowing someone to discriminate against an individual for a factor beyond their control leads to the development of an underclass of citizens with little to no social mobility. If the person has the credentials and talent to do the work, their skin color makes no difference in their productivity.
The same concept holds true for individuals with different religious beliefs, or their sexuality, or a disability. This isn’t an act of charity on the part of society. It’s delivering on equality of opportunity. That also extends to the sphere of legal rights. If everyone isn’t equal, then no one is equal.
When is it okay to discriminate? I don’t see a hard an fast rule forthcoming, but here are some guidelines I would consider:
Is the reason for discrimination related to a quality or trait that a person has no control over?
Will this form of discrimination hinder certain people from fully participating in the political process?
Does the type of discrimination lack a legitimate government interest?
Does the type of discrimination lack a legitimate business interest?
If the answer to any of these questions is ‘yes,’ then I’d pause to question the wisdom of such an action.
Nuance, detail, and specifics of policies matter in determining the right course of action for government. Blaming “DEI” for the problems of the nation rings hollow for me. Conservatives want to blame the ‘woke’ agenda and its diverse conglomerate of followers, but they seem to struggle to articulate the actual laws or policies which they don’t like. But that crowd seems happy to scare Americans into thinking there’s a broad conspiracy of bad actors who somehow want to ruin the country by placing unqualified minorities in positions of power.