Merit or Diversity? A polarized debate

The Changing Landscape of DEI

The landscape of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is undergoing a significant shift. With President Trump having eliminated DEI programs in the U.S. government, a debate about diversity versus merit has ignited. Trumps recent comments linking DEI to the DC plane crash—made before an investigation had even begun—only served to further polarize the issue.

To be clear, I am not a DEI practitioner; I am a facilitator of feedback workshops. This means I have not studied DEI methods. However, I am an international individual. I live as a foreigner in the Netherlands and am married to an African man. I have also worked in a predominantly male leadership team. So I know a few things about bridging cultural gaps and the struggle of trying to fit in when you are different.

My Experience: Lessons from a Sales Office in Norway

Early in my career, I worked in a sales office selling book club memberships over the phone in Norway. This was long before anyone talked about diversity or DEI was coined. We had a large team of motivated young people who earned commissions on what they sold. Our bosses knew that keeping us happy and energized strengthened team spirit, and we encouraged each other. We listened to each other’s phone conversations and helped build each other’s skills. If my colleagues did well, I did well—it was contagious.

It was easy to get a job here as we were on a pure commission based salary. So, no sales meant no money. Which meant anyone could have a go at this job, and if you did wel you earned a good salary.?

The best salespeople on our team were a small group of Norwegian/ Pakistani women. Despite their strong accents, they consistently outperformed most of the team. They didn’t use false names or attempt to conceal their backgrounds. Their confidence, drive, and work ethic made them the top performers. This experience shaped my own perspective—whenever I’ve doubted my own prospects, I’ve recalled this example as proof that hard work and skill matter more than identity.

Diversity versus Merit

The question seems to be?should we prioritize diversity, or should we return to a strict merit-based approach? Critics argue that DEI has led to reverse discrimination, creating a new hierarchy rather than solving bias. However, unconscious biases shape hiring decisions, often favoring those who resemble the decision-makers. In my opinion merit and diversity are not mutually exclusive. The debate has become deeply polarized, but it doesn’t have to be. I invite you to engage with my reasoning and share your thoughts in the comments below.

The Meritocracy Debate: Is It Enough?

Merit-based hiring sounds ideal—after all, who wouldn’t want the most qualified person for the job? But research suggests ( see links in comments) that hiring decisions are rarely objective and people tend to favor candidates with whom they share cultural or educational similarities, often unconsciously. This “affinity bias” means that without checks and balances, a purely meritocratic system can still reinforce existing inequalities.

If we truly want to hire based on merit, we need mechanisms to prevent unconscious bias from distorting the process. Blind hiring, structured interviews, and skills-based assessments are all tools that help ensure decisions are based on actual capability rather than personal preference.

The Problem with DEI: Fighting Discrimination with Discrimination

Critics of DEI point out that many initiatives have used preferential treatment to correct historical injustices, effectively replacing one form of bias with another. The result has been a system that prioritizes identity over individual ability, creating resistance and resentment. DEI, as it in some cases has been implemented, has become divisive.

For DEI to survive, it must evolve. A new approach must focus less on identity politics and more on fostering strong communication skills, mentorship, and professional development. Rather than imposing quotas or making hiring decisions based on demographic checkboxes, organizations should emphasize teaching people how to recognize and nurture talent in others.?

The DEI Backlash against the criticism is not helpful

DEI professionals have fought back against these criticisms, condemning figures like Trump and Musk as ignorant misogynists. We have all seen the Linkedin posts over the last few weeks.? However, this approach—labeling opponents instead of engaging with their critiques—goes against constructive dialogue. Instead of dismissing criticism outright, we should examine what can be learned from it. If DEI efforts have inadvertently created new biases or inefficiencies, then reforming these programs to focus on skill-building and fair hiring practices is the logical next step.

My Approach: Skills, Growth, and Inclusion

Even though I am not a DEI practitioner, I see the merit in working against biases.

The key to a fair and effective workplace isn’t to enforce diversity—it’s to build environments where diverse talent naturally thrives. When people are empowered to excel in their jobs and help others do the same, everyone benefits. The goal should be a system that selects for capability while ensuring bias doesn’t get in the way.

So, is DEI dead? No, but it needs to listen to criticism and reform. Still, the core mission—ensuring that workplaces are fair and inclusive—remains relevant. The next generation of workplace diversity efforts must focus on working against biases through blind, skills-based assessments for hiring and promotion. Additionally, skill-building, communication, and mentorship must cultivate an ecosystem where merit and inclusion go hand in hand.