Remember This: DEI and the Problem with Equity

The Promise of Affirmative Action

During the past decade, much attention has been given to DEI—diversity, equity, and inclusion. In part, most of us can agree there is a lot of good in this. However, the “e”—equity that is at the center of the controversy that surrounds the topic.

The idea to make sure efforts are made to assure individuals of all types and backgrounds are given the opportunity to be included in the American dream is supported by the public. Even affirmative action, as it was originally envisioned, is not all that controversial.

Affirmative action was supposed to mean that extra attention to be sure that qualified individuals of all backgrounds had a chance, on the merits, to compete for various opportunities. This recognized that many positions were occupied by whites, especially white males.

Early Goals and Realities

As a white male, I can easily agree that our history has, for too long, obviously involved discrimination against minorities and women. Affirmative action was intended to get those in charge to make a special effort to seek people for openings that extended beyond white males. So far, so good. Throw in the emphasis on qualified, and you get no argument here.

By the 1990s, however, it became clear that certain companies and institutions (starting with colleges and universities) had instituted programs and policies that were nothing more than a quota system. In other words, the qualifications for one group were different than those for another.

The Rise of DEI

All of this became entwined in circular logic. Given that every race and background deserved to be represented in numbers roughly equivalent to their percentage of the general population, where this was not the case, proves discrimination persists, and to argue differently is to deny that you are discriminating. Just like that, the concept of “qualified” candidates went by the wayside.

Flash forward to the 21st Century. Affirmative action gave way to DEI, or affirmative action on steroids. While lip service was given to diversity and inclusion, the gatekeepers started with equity as the centerpiece to all things.

The Equity Problem

The problem, of course, is that equity means different things to different people. For many, this means going to extra lengths to focus on providing an equal opportunity to all Americans. For others, it meant an unequal standard for individuals, where certain groups of individuals received bonus points at the end of the competition to guarantee an outcome that Progressives had determined was equitable.

To make matters more complicated, equity itself was a moving target. For some things, equity meant as a percentage of the general population. For others, it meant an equal chance to compete.

A Case Study in Meritocracy

It is easy enough to blow past situations where the generally underserved communities are overrepresented. Laugh, if you will, but what if a consistent standard were applied to the National Basketball Association (NBA), there would be a lot of unhappy folks. Overwhelmingly, the league is dominated by African Americans. White players are mostly from foreign countries. Rightfully, very few people argue for, much less demand, that efforts be made to increase the representation of American white males. Almost universally, this is viewed as how a meritocracy should operate.

Meritocracy is fair to all, so long as all have an equal opportunity. At the same time, lowering standards to achieve what Progressives define as equitable is bound to generate hard feelings among those who do not get bonus points at the end of the competition.

The Path Forward

Extra efforts to seek qualified individuals from all races, backgrounds, and genders, check. Special focus given to communities that for too long have not given individuals an equal chance to compete, check. Giving people bonus points at the finish line, thereby rendering equality of competition invisible, is not okay.

Remember This

Remember this: Americans are not evil, hateful people. We recognize that the failures of the past deserve attention. However, lowering standards to guarantee results that a group of elites defines as equitable is rejected by all but those Progressive elitists.