The myth of DEI for those who need to know
user profile
rightaway
 January 31 2025
more_horiz

    The claim is made that DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) began with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Its presence grew slowly for 60 years, but it has begun to wane globally.  Certainly, it isn't considered progressive anymore. 

    I normally don't ponder social fads like this, but I had a few anecdotal moments in which I shared my logic with others, and I was prompted to write it out for others to use.  As a consolation for those who read and try this but don't find success, keep in mind that it is normal for people to hold onto false beliefs, even when presented with the truth.  Flat earthers have always existed and will continue to exist as long as there is an earth, and there is something that you can reference as flat.  

    Let's start at the beginning.  DEI justifies its existence with what supporters call "evidence" that policies exist that result in the underrepresentation of certain groups, particularly racial groups.  For example, the US population in 2020 has a distribution of 196 Million people who classify themselves as white, 66 million who claim Hispanic origins, and 42 million blacks.  That breaks down to 59% white, 19% Latino, and 13% black.  However, within the Fortune 500, the distribution of CEOs shows them to be predominantly white, and DEI claims that if we adjust the C-Suite positions to reflect the population, "that will be a good thing for everyone." 

    DEI became an accepted hypothesis. By 2000, DEI training programs were mainstream in larger companies, and within a decade, many of these companies began hiring people to "enforce" DEI upon the organization structure. DEI expanded to include LGBTQ+ groups, and with the BlackLivesMatter movement, there was an additional focus on inclusion so that "everyone can participate equally." 

    Myth in Sports

    DEI's baseline assumption is that having the BEST QUALIFIED person get the job will result in poor outcomes. Instead of an explanation, pick your favorite football team and imagine how they would do if we had the best available Latino as a linebacker instead of the best person.  Imagine if your team had a quota that said, "About half of the team needs to be white to reflect the society in which we will.  Otherwise, it isn't fair."  How well would they perform.

    There are ZERO successful coaches who use DEI when selecting their starting lineup. If they did, they would underperform their competition and lose their jobs.  Imagine the Alabama Crimson Tide, going onto the field with 20% Latinos.  They would NEVER win.  The teams who send out their best players would win. 

    The opposite of DEI is merit-based opportunity.  The person who does the best during tryouts and interviews gets the job, not the best black or the best Jew.  Sports teams want the best athletes, and every successful coach is color and racially blind.  They would lose if they weren't.  

    If you know someone who is pro-DEI, remind them that if they want to cheer for collegiate or professional sports teams, they are a hypocrite. None of them are DEI, and they don't want to be.  Those organizations would fail in their purpose if they always employed DEI in the workplace.  

    Myth in health care

    When you are in need of urgent medical care, and your needs are critical, you want the best health care, and the best health care providers money can buy.  Your life depends upon it.  For example, if you need surgery, you don't want the best female surgeon.  You want the best surgeon.  I want the people who graduate from medical school to be the best and the brightest in all of academia.  I don't want them to be the best gay from the applicant pool.  I want the ones who are the best.  We can measure that with grades and test scores.  Today, a lot of highly qualified Asians are being left out of medical school despite exemplary grades and test scores because the school thinks they already have enough Asians.  That is wrong and equally racist.  When your life is on the line, race and gender don't matter.  You want the best, and you use an objective standard that applies to everyone.

    Myth in marriage 

    The end game of DEI is not frequently discussed, but it should be.  Once we start assigning racial and gender quotes in the workplace and our public housing, it is only a matter of time before it begins to impinge upon freedom of choice.  We have seen similar top-down policies as politics shift the context of our homes.  The end game of DEI would be for there to be quotas on racial usage of private land, which could become a requirement within marriage.  Don't ask how this could be enforced, but I ask you to consider this.  Once you start claiming that people cannot freely choose who is the best applicant in the workplace, how do you decide where it stops in private?  We have seen other cultures where the government applies standards for who you can and can't marry.  I hate this thought, but it certainly is a logical possibility.  

    Conclusion

    Setting aside election results as the primary factor for the shift, it is obvious that if we didn't abandon DEI in the workplace, we would not be as competitive and successful as our predecessors.  If you insist that 50% of all engineers be female, by definition, they will be weaker than the males.  Why?  There are fewer female engineers to choose from.

    We have had programs in place for half a century to incentivize girls to study STEM.  It has not resulted in commensurate changes in the workforce based on changes in enrollment in engineering programs.  

    Let people pick the best, and let's remain competitive.  Let's stick with MLK's dream and not use skin color and gender to make our selection.  We all want equal opportunity, but we don't want equal outcomes.  We want the best ones to get their fair chance if we are to win as a people. 

    dei dei myth equality of outcome equal opportunity dei in sports dei in healthcare
    467
    1
    467 views
    Filter By:

    Please confirm your account