So the predictable push-back against DEI has started. What now?

In a thought-provoking WhatsApp conversation, I explored the consequences of this pushback we're seeing by folks like Elon Musk as they talk about the state of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and its role in fostering a meritocratic environment. This post expands on that dialogue for Linkedin. This will also be published in my weekly Colorintech Newsletter as an Op-Ed.

DEI is not reverse racism. It's fundamentally about creating opportunities for people who typically don't have them. It's about getting people to the point where they can be evaluated on merit, not on their likelihood of being in a position or nepotism which may I remind people is the status quo when no DEI efforts are made.

The reality today is, if you have a black or Arab or Jewish surname people will discriminate against you because of it, not on merit. Accounting for all other data, there are several studies which demonstrate this impact. So in response to such egregious discrimination, DEI is a response centred around creating chances for those people's skills to be evaluated on their merits." Yes, it does focus on historically marginalised groups where efforts can be targeted and this is uncomfortable perhaps because it can be exclusionary, but perhaps this is just a realisation for some who never feel that, of what it feels like to be a minority or ostracized.

The reality is data (not those who shout in opposition most loudly) shows us that removing DEI from hiring processes or wider HR processes leads to situations where the best person doesn't always get the job. Of course, DEI isn't a perfect silver bullet and sadly many still don't with DEI but the question is, "Is the absence of people trying to make workplaces and society inclusive one which is more or less likely to include, foster well-being drive productivity and deliver better results for all stakeholders."

McKinsey has been going on about this for the good part of a decade and the evidence is pretty unequivocal. More diverse and inclusive businesses perform better than some sort of battery-farmed human capital factory. DEI is about creating opportunities for those who don't have rich Harvard parents but have the academic ability to study at such an institution. Of course, some initiatives may be well-meaning and perhaps may stray into discrimination, but again it's worth questioning whilst two wrongs don't make a right what is the proportionality. Less than a few billion dollars are committed by companies on DEI issues globally, compared to say the efforts that go into other more spurious elements of corporate spending.

If we're going to get folks not there on merit (As is the default case in many instances today), why not have them be a Black gay man or Asian disabled woman? Perhaps the answer is someone inherently believes they are just not as good and if you're Black you won't be a good pilot or if you're a woman you cant run a bank.

It appears in all of this DEI backlash that people have forgotten the status quo prior to the initiatives was not fair or optimal." It perpetuates routine and systemic discrimination.

Lower labour force participation from minority groups harms everyone.

Everyone wants a meritocracy but the challenge should be for people who want to remove all this DEI to explain "how its removal means that anyone who isn't a Straight White Man has equitable and therefore meritocratic chances to succeed on merit?" If there are better ways, we are all open to hearing them. In a world of conscious and unconscious biases, how would they ensure the best candidate wins? Perhaps the view is that the best candidate is the one who can harness and exploit their privileges accordingly at the expense of others.

The way I see it, the pie is getting bigger so more people can eat." Global GDP is growing so there is literally more, but perhaps not for everyone.

The question that this DEI pushback is really provoking is "Do we keep the proportions of who gets what stays the same or enable other people to benefit too?" Those pushing back on DEI are also some of those who profit the most from the status quo. In gross terms, it doesn't mean less but perhaps I'm the form of market share to them it does. So it is a societal issue. Should the concentrated elite set the rules for who gets what opportunity with impunity?

DEI is about equity and that means for some it will be harder. But if they're in favour of merit, the best will win so what's the problem? Those seemingly in favour of a merit-based system appear less enthusiastic about more competition. The irony is that if this so-called meritocracy that exists now was operating, it would ensure despite DEI efforts the "best" candidate still succeeded. The reality is, everyone knows the system today isn't optimal, but what to do about it differs. For some rather than engage with the work of those trying to develop talent and improve outcomes, they regress to providing no solutions and the status quo. It's easier for a select few to ignore discrimination or see it as a cost of business than to think about constructive ways to improve the chances for anyone but themselves.

The powerful privileged minority at the top have platforms (one literally spent (Wasted) tens of Billions on X to share harmful tropes about DEI). They have the unique privilege to reduce the chances for others for their own self-preservation.

For society, the labour market operates at its most efficient where talent can succeed regardless of background. So we should be weary when a select few are arguing against that.