I’ve followed the public debate over Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in the corporate world with keen interest, a topic that hits close to home. Four years ago, I retired from a career in Human Resources consulting after watching colleagues pressure their corporate clients to fixate on race and gender identities when reviewing their benefit programs. I recall twisting myself into knots to justify slicing a benefits survey by race—say, how white versus Black employees ranked paid time off against flexible work arrangements—despite it being illegal to treat employees differently by race. My employer insisted that highlighting racially-disparate opinions was a value-add, though my sarcastic suggestion to chart ice cream flavor preferences by race fell flat.
DEI began with a noble aim: addressing historical inequities. Yet it’s devolved into prioritizing ideological conformity over competence. The original principles—valuing differences, ensuring fairness, fostering belonging—have twisted into viewpoint uniformity, enforced equality of outcomes (no racial disparities permitted), and exclusion of dissenters. CEOs, tasked with steering organizations toward their core missions, now find their focus diluted, turning profit-driven enterprises into social justice platforms.
Parallel to this corporate drift, the American public is waking up to the bureaucratic state’s subversion of the U.S. Constitution. Elon Musk and others decry the fraud, waste, and abuse within this sprawling apparatus, arguing it’s ballooned beyond its constitutional leash into a self-perpetuating entity, unchecked by the founders’ intended balances. Defenders of this bureaucratic behemoth frame it as a guardian of noble causes, but their arguments—like claiming it’s genocide to stop funding obscure overseas projects with taxpayer dollars—strain credulity. Both DEI and the bureaucratic state face a similar charge: undermining foundational principles—organizational integrity in one case, constitutional governance in the other—under the guise of moral necessity.
The parallels run deep. In corporations, DEI’s defenders cling to nuanced rationales, despite its clash with a CEO’s duty to prioritize mission over ideology. In government, bureaucratic advocates justify overreach with far-fetched defenses, sidestepping accountability to taxpayers. Costco shareholders recently rejected a proposal to assess DEI’s legal risks, despite warnings in their Proxy Statement of litigation, reputational, and financial hazards—prudent caution, given the rise in DEI-related lawsuits. Starbucks paid over $25 million to a white employee suing for racial discrimination, while America First Legal’s caseload, like Andre Rhoden v. CBS Broadcasting, exposes DEI’s subversion of civil rights. Rhoden, a praised video editor, was passed over for a less-experienced Hispanic woman because, as the hiring manager admitted, “We have too many straight, white men in our department.”
Some on LinkedIn suggest scaling back DEI to retain its “good parts”—like diverse viewpoints, a sensible goal. But how do you engineer that? Human Resources assumed a mix of skin colors, ethnicities, and sexual orientations would do it, yet no one’s found a better path to this “diversity nirvana.” McKinsey’s 2015 claim that diverse workforces boost financial performance fueled the DEI boom, but two professors debunked it, unable to replicate the findings. Unconscious bias training, a DEI staple, fares no better. The Harvard Business Review touts it as a necessary complement to DEI programs in order to “reduce bias in attitudes and behaviors at work, from hiring and promotion decisions to interactions with customers and colleagues.” However, NCRI’s (Network Contagion Research Institute) November 2024 study aggregates evidence that diversity training doesn’t lift minority representation in management—and worse, their controlled study found anti-racist training breeds hostility toward “oppressor” groups, which will increase the risk of creating hostile work environments.
Intellectuals like John McWhorter, on a recent “Glenn Show” podcast, lament Trump’s repeal of federal DEI programs, warning it sanctions bigotry and a return to 1960s norms. As someone of similar age to Mr. McWhorter, I disagree. Civil Rights Laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination Act—all of which dictate how organizations respect the rights of individuals as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution—precede DEI and protect us still. Eliminating DEI won’t undo those safeguards, despite media and academic hand-wringing.
The bureaucratic state’s overreach mirrors this corporate haze. Both have drifted from their core purposes—government to serve citizens within constitutional bounds, businesses to generate profit via a competent and innovative workforce—under ideological weight. DEI’s repeal doesn’t erase civil rights, just as curbing bureaucracy doesn’t dismantle governance. Instead, both realign with enduring principles: fairness and capability in hiring, accountability and restraint in government. Evidence backs this shift: no data supports the hypothesis that diverse identities improve financial outcomes; “anti-oppressive” and “anti-racist” trainings contribute to toxic work environments; and existing laws already guard against discrimination.
Andrea Lucas, the new EEOC acting chair, told the Wall Street Journal the agency supports civil rights without DEI’s divisive identity politics. Her advice—cast a wide net, focus on merit—echoes calls to trim bureaucratic excess. The twin struggles against DEI and bureaucratic overreach reveal a shared rot: mission erosion under ideological agendas. Stripping away both doesn’t rewind progress; it refocuses us on what works—competence in organizations, constitutional fidelity in government. True diversity of thought, like effective governance, isn’t achieved through ideological mandates; it flows naturally from a commitment to merit in organizations and accountability in government.
Add comment
Comments