The War on DEI: A Manufactured Crisis That Ignores the Real Problem

DEI is essential to a meritocracy.

“Stupid quilt, everybody is most certainly not allowed to belong.”

The current Republican Administration has started calling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) an existential threat to meritocracy. But if they believe that society before current DEI efforts rewarded only qualification and talent, they be plain crazy.

Because for centuries our country’s elite institutions have operated on a system of preferences and mores that had nothing to do with merit.

The Myth of the “Most Qualified”

One of the loudest arguments against DEI is that it lowers standards by admitting or hiring people who aren’t the “most qualified.” But let’s ask a fundamental question: How have we historically defined qualification? For those ardently opposed to DEI, the “most qualified” are usually white men like them who come from semi-privileged (or downright rich) backgrounds, worked in the right companies or attended the right schools.

But for generations, America’s elite colleges have disproportionately admitted students based on factors that have absolutely nothing to do with ability—like whether their parents were alumni, how much money their family could donate, whether they filled out a spot on a specific athletic roster, or whether they had attended a prestigious prep school. The practices of legacy admissions, donor preferences, and institutional favoritism have skewed the playing field for decades.

Yet somehow, there's an uproar when initiatives like DEI attempt to level the playing field—ensuring historically underrepresented students have access to the same opportunities - suddenly, we hear cries about “lowering standards” and “destroying the meritocracy”.

Where was that outrage when unqualified children of the wealthy were getting spots over more talented students, or when somebody’s son got an internship over a more qualified applicant because the son was a caddy at the hiring manager’s country club?

If the goal is a true meritocracy, let’s start by dismantling the real barriers to opportunity: legacy admissions, donor influence, and economic privilege that have long been the unspoken form of affirmative action for the wealthy.

And if DEI is terrible, then what’s the alternative?

Let’s strip away the buzzwords and ask the real question: What does an educational or professional environment look like without a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion?

• Does it mean we return to a world where only the well-connected thrive?

• Does it mean that access to top schools and the best jobs remains reserved for those who hit the birth lottery, or are lucky enough to be born into the right family?

• Does it mean we stop acknowledging the very real barriers that have kept people—through no fault of their own—from accessing the same opportunities?

Because the opposite of DEI is not a utopian meritocracy where the best and brightest naturally rise to the top, the opposite of DEI is a system where the same unspoken preferences continue to benefit the privileged while the rest are told to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” without acknowledging that some were never given boots to begin with.

Why Hasn’t the Progressive Movement Pushed Back Harder against the attack on DEI?

It’s baffling that progressives haven’t mounted a more aggressive defense of DEI. Instead of controlling the narrative, there’s been a retreat—an avoidance of the fight, as though simply ignoring the backlash will make it disappear.

But here’s the reality: This isn’t about DEI. It’s about whether we want to live in a society that acknowledges current and historic inequities, or one that pretends those inequities never existed.

The anti-DEI movement is not about fairness—it’s about protecting the status quo. It’s about ensuring that privilege remains intact, disguised under the language of “merit.” It’s about making people believe that any effort to broaden opportunity somehow attacks their success.

Bitch, please.

Progressives need to stop playing defense and start making the case that DEI isn’t about exclusion—it’s about ensuring that the doors of opportunity aren’t shut before the race even begins. It’s about recognizing that talent is everywhere, but opportunity isn’t. And if we genuinely care about merit, we should fight to ensure everyone—not just the wealthy and well-connected—has a real shot at success.

The question isn’t whether DEI is necessary. The question is: How can we afford not to have it?

Like democracy, DEI is imperfect but far better than the alternative. Like democracy, DEI requires constant maintenance, reflection, and improvement, but scrapping it entirely would hardwire the inequities we all agree exist - and THAT would lower the bar for American progress.

What gives me hope is that, despite the backlash, plenty of leaders, organizations, and everyday people are still committed to making workplaces, schools, and communities more inclusive. The opposition might slow progress, but I don’t think it can fully stop it. The fundamental idea—that diversity strengthens society—has too much evidence and momentum behind it.

Now we have to ask: How can we keep DEI efforts moving forward against this kind of pushback? Maybe that means shifting the framing, doubling down on measurable impact, or embedding equity into broader organizational goals rather than branding it as a standalone initiative.

I don’t know what the actual answer is, but I do know that the “meritocracy crisis” being manufactured by opponents of DEI has nothing to do with the goals or virtues of DEI. It has everything to do with obfuscating the truth:

That privileged people in this Country want things to stay pretty much the same.

What do you think?