DEI policies do not compensate for discrimination
And they tear down the effectiveness of the institutions that we count on.
Make someone’s day: Gift a subscription to your friends and family!
This article is part of a multi-part series on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI):
One of the key arguments in favor of the policies of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is the existence of racial, gender, or other types of discrimination. On the face of it, this argument seems logical:
There are very large differences in outcomes based on gender and race.
Policies that help members of a group who are doing less well seem to mitigate the above fact.
The problem is with group-level thinking in the above two facts. This is a common trick used by ideologues: focus on the group and ignore the individual. When you apply this thinking to individuals, then the entire rationale falls apart.
Let’s just use the hypothetical examples of Judy and Tyrone.
Judy is a white woman who works in a company. She misses out on a promotion because her boss, a white male, incorrectly perceives her as having less merit than Bob, a white male. So her boss promotes Bob, a white male, instead of Judy. Judy quits her job out of frustration and goes to work for another company.
Tyrone is a young black male who applies for a job at a local restaurant, but the owner is afraid that Tyrone will steal from the cash register or mistreat customers because he thinks blacks are more likely to engage in such behavior. Tyrone is forced to continue looking for another job at another restaurant.
How do DEI policies compensate Judy and Tyrone for those acts of discrimination? The answer is that they do not and cannot. DEI can give a promotion to a different white woman or a job to a different young black male, but not those two individuals who actually experienced discrimination.
From the perspective of DEI activists, this does not matter because DEI activists only see groups. Their logic is: Judy is a white woman, and DEI helps white women. Tyrone is a young black male, and DEI helps young black males.
But DEI policies does not actually help Judy and Tyrone in any way.
A different white woman who receives a promotion due to DEI does not “represent” Judy, nor does a different young black male who is hired due to DEI “represent” Tyrone. In both cases, completely different individuals benefit from DEI, not the person who was actually a victim of discrimination.
Individuals do not “represent” other individuals who happen to have a similar demographic characteristics. This is the misapplication of political reasoning to non-political organizations. A senator from Wyoming represents the people of Wyoming. A female senator from Maine does not represent a woman in Wyoming just because they happen to both be female. Nor does a black female CEO represent another black female.
What DEI policies do is force employers to lower their standards in hiring, firing, and promotions to the benefit of whatever protected group happens to be standing in front of them, regardless of their Merit. The odds that this person will happen to be the most qualified member of that protected class are quite low. And so are the odds that the person will be an individual who previously experienced discrimination.
DEI cannot undo discrimination. All it can do is make our institutions more dysfunctional and undermine their legitimacy. The argument that American society is not perfectly merit-based is not a justification for DEI. DEI cannot undo discrimination, nor can it increase merit in society. DEI can only reduce merit and increase discrimination.
The problem is that DEI focuses on groups, while employers hire, fire, and promote individuals. An employer cannot hire a group, nor can an employer fire or promote a group. They must focus on the individual. And DEI has nothing to do with individuals. It is entirely focuses on groups.
And how do you know when society has eliminated all vestiges of racial and gender discrimination? The reality is that we have no idea how much discrimination actually exists. At some point, assuming that DEI works, we will hit a time of no discrimination.
Will DEI policies be terminated when that happens? I seriously doubt it.
DEI policies hurt those it is supposed to help
I would also argue that Judy and Tyrone are hurt by DEI policies. Both benefit enormously from living within a society where institutions make hiring, firing, and promotion decisions based on Merit. Merit-based institutions are far more likely to:
Create long-term economic growth (that will indirectly help Judy and Tyrone).
Offer good working conditions (there are few things worse than being surrounded by incompetent people 40 hours per week, which DEI makes more likely).
Make having a good boss more likely (well, I guess that there is one thing worse: having a bad boss 40 hours per week, which DEI makes more likely).
Sell products at lower prices (which will increase Judy’s and Tyrone’s material standard of living).
Deliver higher-quality services for the same price (that will indirectly help Judy and Tyrone).
Sell products that Judy and Tyrone want to buy.
Rather than asking whether Judy and Tyrone benefit from being hired, fired or promoted above their level of competence, you should ask whether Judy and Tyrone benefit from:
Working for a boss who was promoted above his or her level of competence.
Working with co-workers who was promoted above their level of competence.
Working in a company whose CEOs and executives were promoted above their level of competence.
Working in a company whose payroll processor was promoted above his or her level of competence.
Being protected by police officers who were promoted above their level of competence.
Being protected by fire fighters who were promoted above their level of competence.
Going to a school whose teachers or professors were promoted above their level of competence.
Getting medical advice from a doctor who was promoted above his or her level of competence.
Getting surgery from a doctor who was promoted above his or her level of competence.
Fly in a commercial aircraft with a pilot who was promoted above his or her level of competence.
Getting drugs from a pharmacist who was promoted above his or her level of competence.
Living in a house designed by an architect who was promoted above his or her level of competence.
Living in a house built by construction workers promoted above their level of competence.
Riding in a bus driven by a person who was promoted above his or her level of competence.
Driving a car that was built by factory workers who were promoted above their level of competence.
Driving a car on road and bridges repaired by workers who were promoted above their level of competence?
….. I could go on and on forever….
The reality is that we all benefit from interacting with the most competent person for every job. In sum, the benefits of this are far greater than any short-term advantage from having a job above one’s skill level.
This is why DEI policies in hiring, firing, and promotions are so dangerous. It is not just a “culture wars” issue.
DEI policies in hiring, firing, and promotions get to the very heart of how a modern society functions. We are all dependent on others to go about our day-to-day lives, and we must be able to depend on other individuals and organizations to perform functions with a high degree of competence. That is why Merit is so important, and why DEI is so dangerous.
See also my other articles and podcasts on Ideology:
Why Ideologies Threaten Progress (Part 1 of 3-part podcast series)
Why ideologies fail (podcast)
Descent into a man-made Hell: Understanding modern Totalitarianism
You might also be interested in reading my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:
Two wrongs don’t make a right, though I believe three lefts do.
Great argument. Missing the word "benefit" from this sentence:
"Rather than asking whether Judy and Tyrone benefit from being hired, fired or promoted above their level of competence, you should ask whether Judy and Tyrone from:"