DEI vs MEI

[Gunnar]

DEI and MEI are not at opposite ends of a spectrum—together, they’re keys to unlocking talent

When some tech leaders started touting MEI instead of DEI as the right way to think about building successful teams, I researched the argument. And then I scratched my head.

MEI—which stands for merit, efficiency, and intelligence—emphasizes merit and productivity over identity. Proponents argue that the most “fair” decisions are based on skills and accomplishments.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that argument—outside of a little thing most of us have been taught since childhood: Life isn’t fair.

Some people are born rich and connected; others are born into poverty. Some have happy childhoods; others live in fear. Some are bullied or judged by their gender or the color of their skin. (Those who think they have no biases should become more introspective.)

DEI and MEI aren’t at opposite ends of the spectrum. Instead, they should work together to ensure that talent prevails after leveling the playing field. Businesses and leaders must get the DEI part right to evaluate the best person for the job and unlock individualized potential once they’re inside an organization.

If you break the concepts down, all six words—diversity, equity, inclusion, merit, efficiency, and intelligence—are awesome. They are also not in opposition to each other.

As I said in my previous post below:

... This whole "anti-woke" movement is deeply disturbing and inherently immoral, as far as I'm concerned, as is the abandonment of the principles of DEI. I can think of nothing more antithetical to the teachings of Jesus Christ than that! If one is "anti-woke", they either don't really understand what is meant by "woke", or they are hateful bigots! The same goes for those who oppose and disparage diversity, equity and inclusion.

It is obvious to me that the conservative opposition to DEI is not really fear that some minority person might be selected or promoted over a more qualified White person, but that Whites themselves might no longer be automatically given preference or regarded as inherently superior simply because they happen to be White, regardless of merit or qualifications.

[Physics Guy]

Of course merit, efficiency, and intelligence are the ultimate goals. The problem with just emphasizing them is that this is not a plan but a hope.

We can only really know that something has merit, or is efficient or intelligent, after the fact—often, long after, when there has been time for unexpected consequences to settle and for opportunity costs to be weighed. We have to try to guess MEI in advance, but this is hard. Is that novel suggestion genius or ignorance? Is that polished presentation excellent or shallow?

So, focusing on MEI as if pursuing them were a useful decision strategy is just being deluded about how easy it is to recognize MEI in advance. The way the delusion most often works is that people think it’s easy to judge MEI because they’re not judging MEI at all, but only things that are easy to recognize, like does this person look and sound like the people we expect to see in this role, or say the kinds of things that we’ve come to expect. The temptation to rely on such deceptive proxies is a big threat to good decision-making. It's a dangerous trap that can keep an organization stuck in actual mediocrity, inefficiency, and stupidity, even while it congratulates itself on having so much merit, efficiency, and intelligence.

Pursuing DEI is a big help in avoiding that trap. So emphasizing DEI is a more effective strategy for reaching MEI than pretending that we don’t need any strategy because we can just know MEI when we see it. Pointing out that DEI isn't necessarily the most important goal in itself can be fine, except for being obvious. Everyone wants MEI, and also motherhood, apple pie, and a pony. Holding up pursuit of MEI as a better strategy than pursuit of DEI, however, is just foolish. DEI is an essential tool for achieving the elusive goal of MEI. And if you don't understand this about DEI versus MEI ... that's a proxy sign that actually is worth using, to guess that you're a little short on MEI.

[Gunnar]

Of course merit, efficiency, and intelligence are the ultimate goals. The problem with just emphasizing them is that this is not a plan but a hope.

We can only really know that something has merit, or is efficient or intelligent, after the fact—often, long after, when there has been time for unexpected consequences to settle and for opportunity costs to be weighed. We have to try to guess MEI in advance, but this is hard. Is that novel suggestion genius or ignorance? Is that polished presentation excellent or shallow?

So, focusing on MEI as if pursuing them were a useful decision strategy is just being deluded about how easy it is to recognize MEI in advance. The way the delusion most often works is that people think it’s easy to judge MEI because they’re not judging MEI at all, but only things that are easy to recognize, like does this person look and sound like the people we expect to see in this role, or say the kinds of things that we’ve come to expect. The temptation to rely on such deceptive proxies is a big threat to good decision-making. It's a dangerous trap that can keep an organization stuck in actual mediocrity, inefficiency, and stupidity, even while it congratulates itself on having so much merit, efficiency, and intelligence.

Pursuing DEI is a big help in avoiding that trap. So emphasizing DEI is a more effective strategy for reaching MEI than pretending that we don’t need any strategy because we can just know MEI when we see it. Pointing out that DEI isn't necessarily the most important goal in itself can be fine, except for being obvious. Everyone wants MEI, and also motherhood, apple pie, and a pony. Holding up pursuit of MEI as a better strategy than pursuit of DEI, however, is just foolish. DEI is an essential tool for achieving the elusive goal of MEI. And if you don't understand this about DEI versus MEI ... that's a proxy sign that actually is worth using, to guess that you're a little short on MEI.

It appears to me that all the above would be true whether one tends to give unfair preference to candidates because they happen to be white, or because they happen to be nonwhite and/or minority. So, are you agreeing with me or not? If not, please explain to me why not.

[Hound of Heaven]

Pursuing DEI is a big help in avoiding that trap.

If the 88% rational Democrats were in charge of DEI, then DEI would serve as a positive asset for the Democratic Party during elections. However, similar to numerous other issues, progressives have transformed DEI into a subject that many find unappealing, allowing Trump to boost the Republican voting percentage among all people of color in this election. The Republican Party saw a 13% increase in support from Hispanic voters. If the Republicans manage to boost that percentage by merely 5% in 2028, we may never secure another national election victory again.

DEI originated in the 1960s with positive intentions, but in recent years, it has been reshaped by progressives to focus on reducing the prominence of white identity, aiming to create a sense of equality for minorities in relation to white individuals. Progressives have characterized white individuals as the oppressors, while those with darker skin are seen as the oppressed.

According to Erec Smith, a diversity trainer, "I mean, if you wanted to hold down a group of people without them knowing it, this woke thing is a good strategy." Have you noticed that even DEI trainers are beginning to recognize that DEI has turned into a hindrance in efforts to uplift people of color? They are beginning to understand that undermining white individuals in order to elevate people of color ultimately harms people of color. DEI trainers are guiding white individuals to adopt a more enlightened perspective, moving away from traditional European influences and classical liberalism. The actions of the progressives when it comes to DEI reflect what Marcuse referred to as oppressive tolerance, suggesting that the opposing side's actions may not be tolerated, they must consistently be vilified.

During a DEI conference in 2019, a keynote speaker stated that using a single standard to evaluate a student of color language skills constitutes an act of racism. In essence, the approach to DEI under the guidance of the progressive movement suggests that instructing Black children in standard English contributes to the perpetuation of white supremacy. This instance of Progressive DEI significantly contributed to Trump's increased support among people of color in this election. Moderate Democrats who avoid extreme positions would not have steered DEI in the direction that the progressive movement has taken it.

[Hound of Heaven]

https://www.newsweek.com/dei-college-di ... on-1813481

This article elucidates the reasons why DEI within the progressive movement has become a disadvantage for the Democratic Party and sheds light on how Trump managed to expand his voting margins among people of color. DEI should not be so extreme that it undermines its own purpose, leading to a decline in support from those it aims to assist.

[Gunnar]

https://www.newsweek.com/dei-college-di ... on-1813481

DEI should not be so extreme that it undermines its own purpose, leading to a decline in support from those it aims to assist.

I agree with that, but that some unwisely take it to that extreme should not cause reasonable people to reject and abandon or minimize the intrinsic value and efficacy of DEI. I think a big part of the problem is that there are bigots who really believe that people like themselves really are inherently superior to the minorities they hate and can't bear the thought of them being treated as equals deserving the same rights and respect, they demand for themselves. Such bigots (Trump being a prime example, in my opinion) are very eager to find any excuse to unfairly disparage the very idea of DEI and conclude, unfairly or not, that some progressives take it to unreasonable extremes. It was never (or should never have been) the intent to make white people and their children feel guilty merely for being white or descendants of people who have been guilty of past hatred and bigotry.

And I still say that anyone opposed to honest, active and effective DEI programs and policies either doesn't understand their real intent and efficacy or is a hateful bigot.

[Physics Guy]

It appears to me that all the above would be true whether one tends to give unfair preference to candidates because they happen to be white, or because they happen to be nonwhite and/or minority. So, are you agreeing with me or not? If not, please explain to me why not.

I don't know whether I'm agreeing with you in general or not. Maybe I didn't read the previous posts carefully enough, but I couldn't immediately tell whether my point was even along the same axis as previous ones. I am defending the pursuit of DEI as a goal for organisations, so I have at least this much overlap with other people, either for or against. Apart from that, what I've said may be completely sideways to other comments, or maybe I'm doing nothing but echoing what somebody else has already said, just in language different enough that it's not obvious to me.

I do agree that diversity really should mean diversity, and not just be a codename for giving preference to non-white non-males. In practice, at present, a lot of organisations have too many white males, and not enough other kinds of people, and so increasing diversity in those organisations is going to mean getting more non-white non-male people into decision-making roles. In principle, though, a group which is too overwhelmingly Black and female could well benefit from bringing in some white and/or male people.

There might be special cases for organisations that are specifically devoted to serving a particular demographic slice. It probably wouldn't make sense for an organisation that is trying to serve and/or sell to some community composed mainly of Black women to reserve half of its board spots for white men. If that organisation were big enough to have a board of more than ten people, though, then it might well make sense for it to try to have one white and/or male person on the team. The outside perspective could still be valuable in lots of ways, even though the organisation's purpose requires a concentration of expertise from a narrower range.

Pursuing diversity is not about pursuing justice by giving out goodies to all the unfairly deprived people who deserve goodies. Pursuing diversity is a means to the end of efficiency, through finding solutions that would otherwise have been overlooked and avoiding complacent mediocrity. I also happen to think that pursuing efficiency in this particular way is likely to achieve more fairness than any attempt to legislate fairness will; this is pretty much the same "invisible hand" effect that free-market capitalism achieves in lifting more people out of poverty than Communism does.

You don't make a point of hiring more Black people because you have a moral duty to be fair to Black people. Maybe you do have such a moral duty, but it's still not why you do this. You push to get some more Black people hired because your current lack of Black people indicates to you that your previous hiring procedures were inefficiently tapping a talent pool, and so you can get an edge by improving on this.

[Gunnar]

It appears to me that all the above would be true whether one tends to give unfair preference to candidates because they happen to be white, or because they happen to be nonwhite and/or minority. So, are you agreeing with me or not? If not, please explain to me why not.

I don't know whether I'm agreeing with you in general or not. Maybe I didn't read the previous posts carefully enough, but I couldn't immediately tell whether my point was even along the same axis as previous ones. I am defending the pursuit of DEI as a goal for organisations, so I have at least this much overlap with other people, either for or against. Apart from that, what I've said may be completely sideways to other comments, or maybe I'm doing nothing but echoing what somebody else has already said, just in language different enough that it's not obvious to me.

I do agree that diversity really should mean diversity, and not just be a codename for giving preference to non-white non-males. In practice, at present, a lot of organisations have too many white males, and not enough other kinds of people, and so increasing diversity in those organisations is going to mean getting more non-white non-male people into decision-making roles. In principle, though, a group which is too overwhelmingly Black and female could well benefit from bringing in some white and/or male people.

There might be special cases for organisations that are specifically devoted to serving a particular demographic slice. It probably wouldn't make sense for an organisation that is trying to serve and/or sell to some community composed mainly of Black women to reserve half of its board spots for white men. If that organisation were big enough to have a board of more than ten people, though, then it might well make sense for it to try to have one white and/or male person on the team. The outside perspective could still be valuable in lots of ways, even though the organisation's purpose requires a concentration of expertise from a narrower range.

Pursuing diversity is not about pursuing justice by giving out goodies to all the unfairly deprived people who deserve goodies. Pursuing diversity is a means to the end of efficiency, through finding solutions that would otherwise have been overlooked and avoiding complacent mediocrity. I also happen to think that pursuing efficiency in this particular way is likely to achieve more fairness than any attempt to legislate fairness will; this is pretty much the same "invisible hand" effect that free-market capitalism achieves in lifting more people out of poverty than Communism does.

You don't make a point of hiring more Black people because you have a moral duty to be fair to Black people. Maybe you do have such a moral duty, but it's still not why you do this. You push to get some more Black people hired because your current lack of Black people indicates to you that your previous hiring procedures were inefficiently tapping a talent pool, and so you can get an edge by improving on this.

Thanks for that reply. Based on it, it seems to me that we are basically in general agreement on this issue.