Equity and The Deliberate Destruction of Institutions

The Cancer at the Heart of DEI

It has become increasingly common to equate opposing the DEI paradigm in the US with being anti-black or an expression of racial bias. It has also become increasingly common to name black people in positions of power as "DEI hires" or blame DEI as the cause for dangerous mechanical failures by manufacturers employing DEI strategies. Since, like CRT before it, what DEI is depends on the perspective of the individual defining it, everyone's understanding of it reflects some essential truth. As a result we waste a great deal of time arguing over what DEI is, rather than considering if what it represents is useful or needed.

DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. The starting assumption is that these words represent positive values with no examination of what the specific goals are or the trade-offs in pursuing them. One assumed goal of DEI policies is to increase representation from minority groups that match or exceed their statistical representation in society. It is predicated on the idea that minorities are likely to be excluded from positions in companies not employing DEI due to racial animus. The idea reflects the reality of legal racial discrimination prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, a reality that no longer exists.

It is no more legal to use a person's race as a consideration for employment or university admissions than it is as a consideration against employment or university admissions. In 2023 the Supreme Court severely limited Affirmative Action and the use of race in university acceptance. While it was initially instituted to ensure opportunity to qualified black students, the justices found it to unlawfully limit the opportunities of qualified white and Asian students. At the end of 2023 billionaire Marc Cuban had an expansive conversation with multiple X (formerly Twitter) accounts defending the use of DEI. Cuban felt that diversity was a positive goal and that race and sex were worth considering for employment in that light. Cuban was eventually informed by a Commissioner from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that such consideration violated civil rights law. Since immutable characteristics like race and sex are disallowed for consideration in hiring and admissions, it is useful to look at how DEI is employed to determine it's purpose.

In 2023, the Oregon Board of Education dropped the requirement of passing a standardized test of basic skill mastery for graduation. The move is seen as increasing the success of black students. Black students were disproportionally affected by the test. A number of universities, including Ivies, have dropped standardized test scores for consideration in admissions. Elite public high schools that use entrance exams, like Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Virginia and Stuyvesant High School in New York City, have dropped testing requirements. These moves have been made for racial balancing or to increase racial representation among student bodies. This is an example of equity. Equity erases individual advantage to ensure relatively equal outcomes. That advantage may be anything from a stable household, family wealth, or even a strong work ethic. Poor students without expansive social connections have gained entry to elite high schools and Ivies through their effort in class and the result of preparation for standardized tests.

One obvious trade off of increasing diversity through equity is lowered standards. After all, if the diversity sought were possible without lowering standards, removing tests that establish a lower threshold would not impact that diversity. What are the trade-offs in lowering standards? Without knowing the details we can ascertain that the cost is not always worth the price of diversity. MIT, Dartmouth, and Yale have returned to requiring standardized tests for admissions. There are fields where lowered standards represent an increased risk of death or injury.

Journalist Aaron Sibarium, speaking to whistleblowers from the UCLA medical school admissions department, reported on their lowered standards. He found that in the current cohort, 50% of students fail post rotation tests of medical competency. "One professor said that a student in the operating room could not identify a major artery when asked, then berated the professor for putting her on the spot. Another said that students at the end of their clinical rotations don't know basic lab tests and, in some cases, are unable to present patients."

While lowered medical school entry standards do not currently automatically ensure incompetent doctors will practice, there is no guarantee that won't change. A number of law schools across the nation have dropped LSAT requirements for admissions. Since standardized tests reflect academic ability, one could previously be assured that a practicing lawyer had basic competency. Each had to pass their state bar exam to receive a license to practice law. However, Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire have removed the bar as a a requirement to be licensed in those states to increase diversity and address lawyer shortages. As race based admissions lower the quality of medical school students, we also face a shortage of doctors. Will that shortage eventually mean a lower standard for practicing medicine? It seems like a question best answered by never needing to answer it.

If you are honest, how would you feel about a black doctor or lawyer who graduated from a school employing DEI in its admissions process? How would you determine the competency of that individual? How comfortable would you be placing your health or freedom in his hands? This points to another obvious trade-off of DEI. Minorities from programs employing DEI initiatives will be seen as less than fully qualified, whether they needed standards lowered or not. Supporters of DEI consider this a form of racism, but the racism is inherent to DEI itself. Critics are merely demonstrating the obvious consequence of elevating diversity over competency. People will notice that you have elevated diversity over competency.

The unreconcilable issue with DEI is that its practice is predicated on the racism of low expectations. Standardized tests are removed because black students fail at a higher rate. The bar exam is removed from licensing requirements because too many black participants fail. The subtext is that those standards are unfair to inherently inadequate black people. The only way to ensure their participation is by lowering standards to meet them where they are.

For the sake of argument, let us take diversity as an essential positive. Are there means to achieve it without weakening the institution or undermining the individuals representing the diversity? There are, they're just not likely to result in the arbitrary numbers currently considered representative. How would you feel about a black doctor or lawyer who graduated from a school with stringent entrance and graduation standards? Would your feelings change if you learned that he did 25% more work than classmates to reach the same level? For many of us, that would reflect positively on his character while detracting nothing from the belief in his competency. He has elevated himself to reach the standard. The standard has not been lowered to where he is assumed to be. The advantages of his classmates are not erased. More importantly, his advantages of discipline and effort are not erased.

The problem is equity. It is the recognition that life is unfair and the misunderstanding of what that means. It is the idea of addressing unfairness by flattening groups into monoliths instead of recognizing the value of individual agency. Even within groups, individuals have different advantages and challenges unrelated to group affiliation. Put another way, since everyone has different inputs from wealth, culture, social support, discipline, etc, different outcomes are natural. Equity is the idea that we need to treat natural outcomes like a dilemma to be confronted.

Those who consider criticisms of DEI racist should recognize that the racism is not in the criticism but in the low expectations baked into DEI. To increase diversity without lowering institutional standards requires increasing the inputs for those considered disadvantaged. The benefit is that it strengthens those individuals and their social perception. This would be a more effective way of confronting racism than getting mad at people for noticing that others are being valued for the color of their skin.