"DEI"—standing for diversity, equity, and inclusion—has become a catchall term for everything that is wrong with America. It's commonplace these days to hear the idea that DEI efforts in schools, universities, and corporations across the country have overly racialized America and placed unqualified people (largely minorities) in positions that they don't deserve to be in.
That is not accurate. The truth is far more nuanced than that, but there is a piece of the DEI equation that is so toxic that it has the potential to tarnish the entire thing.
Most corporations and many government entities have had diversity and inclusion programs—the predecessor to DEI—for decades. The goal was to ensure that there were policies and procedures in place to make sure that their workforce looks like America, as it should.
Where critics of DEI miss the boat is in their lack of specificity. Diversity is a good thing. Inclusion is a good thing. Having talented people with different perspectives and backgrounds enhance a work environment in a positive way. The problem is not and has never been "diversity and inclusion." The problem is so-called "equity."
When the "E" was added to the "D" and the "I", that's when things began to go out of whack. Where Diversity and Inclusion encouraged collaboration and cultural exchanges, "equity" places everyone in binary boxes of oppressor vs. oppressed. Regardless of life experiences, history or background, a person's race became the singular dividing line. That is the exact opposite of the original intent of diversity and inclusion programs.
The increased attention on DEI without people specifically identifying their objections has led to a perception that these programs are solely in place to help minorities. There's just one problem. The overwhelming majority of Chief Diversity Officers are white. Less than 4 percent are Black. The toxicity of the "E" causes Black people to be blamed for DEI's excesses while ignoring the fact that those very departments are largely ran by white people.
Equity also changed the goals and desired outcomes. In the past, the fight was over equality of opportunity. America still has a long way to go in that battle, but at least the destination was commonly understood. Equity diverts the destination to equality of outcomes, which is impossible. One will never achieve equality of outcomes because people just don't work that way. Some will always achieve more than others, regardless of race.
Equality of opportunity says that we should be fighting to make sure that everyone gets an equal chance to get in the race, not to guarantee who the winner of the race is. So-called Equity has become a distraction and threatens to harm the much-needed goals of diversity and inclusion. As backlash against DEI's excesses continue, many people are calling for getting rid of the entire effort, throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Equity's destruction of diversity and inclusion is harmful to the country in the long run. As entrepreneur John Hope Bryant said, "the reality is that there aren't enough college educated white men to drive the economy for the next 30 or 40 years. That's not a racial comment, it's demographics." Whether Americans should continue to be forced to have a college degree in order to participate in the economy is a fair debate but as long as that is the case, the numbers are what they are.
As a result, you need Blacks, Hispanics, women and other groups impacted by diversity and inclusion programs to be fully integrated into the American economy. Bryant added, "We're all in this thing together. Otherwise, China's a real threat because they want to lead the world. They want to take it from us and they can't do that unless it's an unfair fight."
As with most issues, there are critical truths and nuances in the DEI conversation that need to be examined. These programs exist to compensate for the disconnection that many of these entities have with the real world. If your company is in an integrated environment, your recruitment would be naturally diverse. In some ways, the lack of natural diversity in many of these organizations is a product of their elitism. Breaking down their elitist walls may also help to encourage a natural diversification.
There are also those that say the entire concept strikes at the heart of the meritocracy. That's a lie. Our economy has never been fully meritocratic. In households across the country, there are parents telling their children, "It's not what you know, it's who you know." By definition, that is not meritocratic.
Why does anyone even care about elite colleges like Harvard or Yale? It's not because they educate you better than a good state school. It's because you get access to an elite social circle that theoretically gives you a leg up against everyone else. There's nothing meritocratic about that. Many of us can name examples of people from all backgrounds that "failed up" because of who they know.
There are some who are simply using the DEI debate to diminish the accomplishments of any minority as anti-merit while ignoring the millions of other examples that expose the "meritocracy" as a fairy tale.
This requires smart and specific conversations, not vague generalizations and bad faith arguments. Diversity and inclusion are critical in a 21st century America, but "equity" as currently understood is a poison fruit that threatens to destroy the whole tree.
Save D and I by getting rid of E.
Darvio Morrow is the CEO of the FCB Radio Network and co-host of The Outlaws Radio Show.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
About the writer
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here.
