To be sure! That has been glaringly obvious to me from the start of Trump's ascendency! It was deeply heartbreaking to me to find out that latent racism appears to still be so much more deeply ingrained in so many more Americans than I had thought.Kishkumen wrote: ↑Fri Mar 21, 2025 5:57 pmYeah, I have no doubt that a lot of the motivation behind support for Trump is racism, especially with people like Stephen Miller and Elon Musk involved.Some Schmo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 21, 2025 5:50 pmDEI is an attempt at systemic decency, which is a direct assault on systemic racism, so I understand why Trump fans hate it.
I still firmly believe in the importance and virtue of DEI, but it must be balanced by MEI (Merit, Excellence, Intelligence/integrity)Some Schmo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 21, 2025 5:50 pmDEI is an attempt at systemic decency, which is a direct assault on systemic racism, so I understand why Trump fans hate it.Kishkumen wrote: ↑Fri Mar 21, 2025 5:41 pmWhen they have no Social Security, their investments are in the toilet, and they are living in a poorer, weaker, and more isolated country with high unemployment and inflation, they can rest assured that they don't have to see the acronym DEI on a federal government webpage, which they probably never visit anyway.
In other words, the problem of DEI is not inherent in DEI itself but in the injudicious and inflexible way some have chosen to implement it.Conversations about diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) have become highly polarized. At one end of the spectrum some politicians attack DEI as a threat to democracy, some academics describe DEI as an ideology that stifles academic freedom, and some corporate leaders claim that DEI fosters mediocrity and threatens success. At the other end of the spectrum, some politicians describe DEI as an essential element of democracy, some academics claim that everyone must be taught about DEI, and some corporate leaders claim that DEI is a key ingredient to create lasting value.
These diverging viewpoints are at the heart of the ongoing debate that pits DEI against MEI (which stands for merit, excellence, intelligence). But arguing that DEI and MEI are in opposition creates a false dichotomy and is counterproductive. In the words of Stephen Chu, Chief Legal and Administrative Officer at human capital management company InStride, “The terms ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ have been overly politicized but in actuality, the goal of constructing a workforce based on merit, excellence, and intelligence requires a thoughtful approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Merit without opportunity is an illusion.”
The rhetoric that pits diversity and merit as opposites is counterproductive because, in reality, both sides want the same thing: a fair chance to pursue opportunities and to be rewarded for one’s efforts. But the polarization leads to opposite interpretations, as explained by Cynthia Overton, Senior Director of Tech Workplace Initiatives at the Kapor Foundation: “To those who support it, DEI is grounded in the notion that, if one has the skills to do a job, they should not be penalized because of their race, gender, or other identity traits. And yet, those who oppose it use the term DEI to refer to someone who achieved something based on their personal characteristics rather than on merit.”
How can the same concepts be interpreted so differently? Part of the problem lies in the increased tendency to consume information from sources we trust, while discarding information from other sources. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the more extreme viewpoints tend to be the ones that receive the most coverage in traditional and social media.
I still suspect, though, that the deeper truth is that Trump and many of his sycophantic followers and enablers (probably Musk, especially) really are racists, and sometimes seem quite open and unapologetic about it!
The rest of the article:
I think the article makes a lot of valid points that deserve honest consideration. To me, the most important take away is that there is nothing inherently evil or sinister about DEI, especially when it is properly integrated with MEI.How can the same concepts be interpreted so differently? Part of the problem lies in the increased tendency to consume information from sources we trust, while discarding information from other sources. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the more extreme viewpoints tend to be the ones that receive the most coverage in traditional and social media.
First, let’s consider the DEI side. Women and members of other historically underrepresented groups experience forms of discrimination that interfere with their ability to succeed in the workplace. The discrimination is often not overt: sometimes it is due to unconscious biases, other times it is due to biases in organizational policies and processes. In fact, these forms of discrimination are virtually invisible to members of the majority. What is visible is the low levels of representation. So, in order to address the problem, DEI supporters suggest setting targets for higher representation levels, and training everyone to recognize their own unconscious biases—focusing on the symptoms instead of the root causes. However, from the point of view of members of the majority, this amounts to being told that “you will be less likely to be promoted because you are not underrepresented,” and that this is justified because you are fundamentally a bad person whose unconscious biases are causing discrimination. And this leads to animosity and complaints of reverse discrimination.
Now let’s look at the MEI side. Members of the majority often enjoy privileges, but just like the unconscious biases, these privileges are largely invisible to us (I say “us” being myself a member of this group). We get an education, we apply for jobs, we work hard to succeed in those jobs, and feel good when we are rewarded for our efforts. We assume that if we have been successful by following a certain path, it is because we deserve it. We also assume that those who follow the same path are likely to succeed. In other words, we often judge potential based on the schools we attended, the internships we did, the networks we were able to leverage. And this is how we define “merit” in a meritocracy. If someone was unable to achieve a certain level of success, we assume that it is because they were simply not very good, and not because they faced and continue to face obstacles that we never have to face—again, we focus on symptoms and ignore root causes. From the point of view of members of underrepresented groups, this amounts to being told that “you are not good enough because you didn’t go to a top school” and that if you are struggling at work it’s not because of all the day-to-day problems you face, it is simply because you are less capable. Worst of all, as a result of misguided DEI approaches of recent years, it is often assumed that if you advance in your career it is probably because of your gender or skin color, not because you deserve it.
These observations should make it clear that the differences between DEI and MEI are largely grounded in how these concepts are interpreted and applied, not in their original intent.
And this suggests that the best way to end the polarization is to stop listening to the divisive rhetoric, and focus instead on what we all want: the opportunity to get a job for which we are qualified, to keep that job if we are performing well, and to advance in our careers based on performance.
I think you are right that too many corporate Democrats are also too beholden to wealthy and avaricious billionaire donors. I think many Democrat voters know or strongly suspect this is the case. I'm sure that this is a major reason why both Democrats and Republicans have been sinking in approval polls -- and for much the same reasons.Kishkumen wrote: ↑Fri Mar 21, 2025 6:24 pmHonestly, I think corporate Democrats do DEI so they can avoid redressing the unfairness of our current system, dominated as it is by corporate and billionaire donors who would rather have someone in their employ write new DEI policies than pay meaningful taxes.
