Many factors are driving the current shift away from promoting diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI). Some of these are political and based on prejudice, and you really cannot do anything with stupid except pity it. But I’m also seeing an ideological argument more and more often that needs to be dispelled.
The thinking seems to be that DEI puts people in positions of responsibility they are unqualified for because of DEI criteria rather than ability, and that DEI therefore undermines a truly meritocratic structure where the best people for the job rise to the top regardless of other factors. This belief, however, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what DEI should be about.
DEI is absolutely not about giving certain groups an advantage in recruitment or promotion competitions because they happen to have a particular characteristic, be it gender, race, disability, or something else. This may have happened occasionally, but that is not how DEI should work. Instead, DEI is about giving people from these groups a fair chance against others who have not faced the particular struggles that result from these characteristics. These struggles can come from prejudice among decision-makers, a lack of reasonable adjustments for differences, or many other causes.
The classic illustration of how DEI should work is three people trying to see over a fence to watch a sports match. The tallest can see over the fence without help, while the other two find their view blocked. One needs just a couple of extra inches of height to see over the fence, while the other needs much more help. One solution is to give the two shorter 2 people boxes of different heights so that when they stand on them, they are the same height as the tallest person. But an even better solution is to replace the solid fence that blocks the view with a chain-link fence that anyone can see through, regardless of height.
DEI is not about giving anyone an unfair advantage. It is about removing barriers so that everyone can be judged fairly on the criteria that matter for the job. If you are recruiting an air traffic controller, the only criteria for the job should be their abilities, qualifications, and experience in that role, not the colour of their skin, their gender, or their disability (or lack of one). All of these criteria work both ways, of course – irrelevant criteria to the job should neither be used to prefer one candidate over others nor to exclude candidates. In other words, you should not pick the person for the job just because they are white or not disabled, nor should you exclude candidates because they are not white or are disabled.
Of course, this all works much better in theory than in practice. We all have unconscious biases, whether we like it or not, and we all tend to be drawn to people like us. DEI aims to remove both conscious and unconscious bias so decisions are based only on relevant criteria. It should never be about favouring a candidate over others because they are from a particular group, whether that group is the majority or is seen as underrepresented. It is about addressing why groups are underrepresented, not making the figures look better for their own sake.
The argument to ditch DEI, therefore, is either based on a total misunderstanding of what it is or is a brazen attempt to make decisions based on personal prejudices. I leave you to draw your own conclusions in individual cases.