Yes I agree . Equality of opportunity works well, but it doesn’t fit in a three letter acronym, and is too specific and difficult for political people with agendas to manipulate.
The origin of DEI is interesting inasmuch as it is proof of an astronomical amount of schooling combined with zero actual education. Great riff, Michael.
Abstolutely a lack of education. Especially insofar as another angle is that you can’t have diversity with pure inclusion. Diversity requires either internal or external exclusion. We discussed Punk in a different comment being a function of both and it was mentiond queer is another. It’s an intentional separation, not inclusion, that creates a different enough culture or behavior to be considered diverse.
It depends on how you define "diversity". If it is characterized by separate notions of human kinds (difference) as we exist in that way (we don't), your conclusion is sound.
If it is defined as "any mixture of similarities, differences, and their respective tensions and complexity," the idea of needing to exclude doesn't work.
When we think of it as our reality and inclusive of the things beyond human kinds that we interact with daily (i.e., everything from enviromental diversity to organizational culture, from organizational or industrial type to geographic distinctions) we can transcend the reduced versions of one another and deal with complexity and tension in a way that is clearly about everyone and every contextually relevant thing.
Without Equity, DEI has no meaning. It is the entire moral framework for DEI,so it cannot be taken out.
Equity is deliberate discrimination in the present to compensate for discrimination in the past. That is goal of DEI, and that is why Equity cannot be removed from DEI without it collapsing.
Fantastic. I’d just add that equity is just trying to jump to the conclusion of equality. They both have the same goal and, over time, equality results in equity but ironically, equity almost never is achieved and it certainly isn’t equality. What a tangled mess!
A lot of this argument hinges on a paragraph in the first section where you state that most people have tolerance for diversity and inclusion. If that were true, maybe I’d agree with you — equality would work better. But equity exists as a value exactly because so many people would prefer to live in a less diverse and inclusive world. Just look at the popularity of the term “woke,” which is a euphemism for intolerance of diversity and inclusion. Equity exists as a more aggressive measure for countering crude and inexcusable intolerance, which is, unfortunately, extremely common.
I disagree. Nonhuman is open to pure D and I. We all draw lines around culture, behavior, etc. In my experience, the least diverse and inclusive are, ironically, those under the banner of woke that you mentioned. There's so much truth to the stereotypical memes.
25 years ago I wrote a paper titled "We are not going to tolerate intolerance" and explored the burgeoning behavior in the left, who used tolerance as a moral cudgel back then, for how intolerant of diversity of thought and inclusion of differing perspectives. It has gotten much less tolerant to diversity and inclusion since.
The most annoying thing is that their diversity is whitewashed and skin deep. It doesn't matter what color or culture you are as long as you think and talk like them. Thomas Sowell writes extensively about this as did Malcolm X.
This article shows how the DEI focus of a major company didn't want actual diversity:
Ideologically and rhetorically, I agree with you sometimes. I think it’s worth thinking through how the left throws the baby out with the bathwater by dismissing arguments that don’t sound ideologically aligned.
But I think you’re giving the right too much of the benefit of the doubt by assuming they want to see diversity in the world when we have critics of “woke” immediately dismissing nonwhite, queer, or non-Christian people outright (e.g,saying they wouldn’t be a passenger in a plane with a black woman pilot. While equity measures aren’t ideal, their purpose is to offer a plan for when this happens. And if you’re right that diversity is important (and I agree with you here too), equity is simply about putting our money where our mouth is so that we’re not just paying lip service to diversity as a value. We can make it happen, too, which will yield good outcomes (because, let’s say it again, diversity is important).
And I loved that article you wrote about the fish — I praised it in the comments. I appreciate how you approach these topics in good faith.
Good points. I don't disagree with those goals. I'd add two additional thoughts.
1. We aren't coded to accept our diversity and inclusion. There is always an us and them.
2. The ironic outcome of pure diversity and inclusion is actually the elimination of diversity and inclusion. Out another way, without an us and them you wouldn't have diversity and you wouldn't need inclusion.
Part of what makes diversity is actually exclusion either internally or externally. Punk music tried to achieve both and, by rejecting inclusivity and by being excluded, created a diverse layer in society. (And now you've got me thinking of a new topic...) 🤓
The term “woke” has been appropriated from African-American vernacular and effectively neutralized as a meaningful concept. What it means within its original cultural context is someone who is highly aware of the systemic and cultural dynamics within which they live and who acts on that knowledge accordingly; almost the exact opposite of how the term has been weaponized.
Like many phrases, an original meaning or meaning within a group is warped into something else by another group.
#BLM was similar. It was simply a hashtag tweet in response to Trayvon Martin. Crazy that he was killed not long ago but it's hard to remember all the details. The problems of collective memory ...
I'm also skeptical when Michael isn't critical of the extreme Right.
There's a lot of depth missing in this article. DEI isn't so easily waft aside because it is a critique of liberal democracy. Critiquing the E in DEI is important, but is done poorly.
I used to believe, like Morgan Freeman, that we need to just stop talking about racism. Then it will go away. Well ... history is ugly.
My "ahah!" moment about disbelieving DEI was reading Derrick Bell. Bell theorized the banned acronym, CRT (Critical Race Theory). At first, the permeance of racism repulsed me. But history is an ugly predictor of patterns or themes, even if not a cycle on repeat.
On the one hand slavery was outlawed by democracies around the world, eventually via the UN, yet on the other hand human trafficking continues. In US history, Emancipation, Reconstruction, the Civil Rights of the 60s were marches towards Black freedom; on the other hand, each was a response to continued racism. Lincoln believed he created an equal society, when the Pullman porters were regulated to separate work. LBJ believed he created an equal society, when Blaxploitation broadcast on the radio waves and TV. All of this was traced in Kendi's historical review of racist ideas, though no American needs to read Kendi's "banned book" to understand. DuBois had made similar traces in US history until he passed away mid-20th century.
Yet the Enlightened liberal democracy can transcend discrimination, right?! No, Bell theorized that history indicates no political power can overcome tribalism, bigotry, or race-based discrimination. Brutal, systematic slavery existed before 1619, despite what Hannah-Jones says to condemn the founding of the US. Kingdoms of Africa, and Europe, Empires of Asia -- all had various forms of discriminatory powers that created societies of inequalities. World history appears to support Bell's critical theory. I don't think this is a foreign conclusion for anyone whose read history. People tend to group up based on similarities.
Yet, the triumphalism of equality, liberty, freedom, and Enlightenment ideals are the typical responses. OK, the questions are then: how have liberal democracy created societies that are totally different from any in past history? Does it tear down tribalism? Again US history: German immigrants moved together, like to parts of the Midwest; women grouped together to form societies, like the Women's League and the lesbian communes; Black Exodustors tended to migrate North to cities, not typically out by themselves on the Plains alongside Native people or white settlers. Gays tend to live very close to each other in Blue state cities in "gayborhoods", like Chicago's Boystown. All these tribes form, and there is the obvious problem: the in-group, and the out-group. And the bigger problem: some groups aren't voluntary membership. (Some people cannot simply move from the out-group to the in-group, so my historical references to physically moving is an analogy for metaphysical moves.)
US history has several critics that make the case that nominal equality in law does not create actual equality in society. Americans don't move to wherever they're free to move. They move to be with their "tribe". This has always happened. This is the very heart of the Dunning School and the segregationists concept of 'separate but equal'. It is stunning to me that Americans are not seeing the legal connections back to Plessy v. Ferguson. The criticism of Red-lining was an attempt to consider more evidence of collusion between local municipalities and bankers to recreate group-specific neighborhoods. Levittown, heralded by many US history textbooks as the new form of suburban planning, banned Black residents; and the criticism extended to HOAs after the 1960s Equal Housing laws that continued to discriminate based on less overt characteristics than obvious Black Codes. So evidence of tribalism continues. Bell's CRT isn't all that crazy when seen as unvoluntary tribalism wrapped in legal systems. CRT was meant to only explain American law, but I think it explains all discrimination, even extralegal means, through all history.
There's serious theory and evidence behind the emergence of DEI. It did not conjure out of thin air. Some DEI consultants did abuse the flood of funds. There's been no government reform that wasn't abused, but that doesn't mean Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare all get defunded. Even the Right doesn't get behind that.
On the philosophical side, Rawls' theory of justice is begged. Is affirmative action a legal reverse discrimination, or do laws on the books demonstrate continued discrimination anyways? In other words, racism continues in subverse ways. On the racialized ideas side, does equality in society arrive with assimilation towards a national norm? Or does a pluralistic and multicultural society mean equality has been achieved? Finally, the unmentionables: are separatists correct, and a national identity and cohesion the progressive, next step after primitive tribalism? And the other unmentionable -- meritocracy: does the historical evidence demonstrate that every American is provided, both nominally and in actuality, the same options in our society?
I've found that these questions and points are rarely discussed. We Americans have an idea about equality, yet when we imagine that idea to be real, we don't agree on how to measure it. I'll admit to major reservations about the anti-racist metric of statistical equitable disproportionalities. But if we throw that metric out, how do we measure equality? Interracial marriage rates??
The fundamental question for meritocracy in liberal democracy is: how do we know that every American starts the race at the same line and same time? I cannot come to the oversimplistic, merit-based conclusion that all people who didn't "make it" (-- notice there is an implicit, undisclosed metric going on in this conclusion about "making it" -- ) that these people in a our society simply choose to fail. Some did make horrible choices despite equal starts, yes. I'm not denying free will. But explaining away inequities entirely by free choice is a rather cruel, ignorant overgeneralization that "unburdens" anyone else's choices as affecting outcomes (to borrow Mamala's word salad).
Equality under the law is an oversimplistic answer. If the law created society absolutely, then there would be no crime. Obviously, the reality of society misses the ideals of its laws. So I demand this implicit measuring stick be pulled out and looked at very closely.
The term “woke” has been appropriated from African-American vernacular and effectively neutralized as a meaningful concept. What it means within its original cultural context is someone who is highly aware of the systemic and cultural dynamics within which they live and who acts on that knowledge accordingly; almost the exact opposite of how the term has been weaponized.
One issue with outcome based results (like equity per your definition) is that the causes of the outcomes are rarely as simple as the advocates for outcome based results believe. While sexism/racism/etc. may be *a* cause of differing college graduation rates, is it the only cause? The dominant cause? Simply a cofactor of other causes? And how much does dumb luck play a factor in the results?
Human society is not mechanical, where you can ensure the fence posts are all the same height by carefully engineering how you put them in the ground.
Human society is biological. You can plant the same seeds in the same soil, give them the same nutrients and the same water, and the plants won't all end up the same height.
If you want equal heights (equity), the only way to do so is to trim the plants that stand out above the others. That means injustice against the plants that thrived, not justice for the ones that didn't grow as tall.
Vonnegut's Handicapper General has entered the room.
Glad you took this conversation on as it’s essential to acknowledge the fundamental difference between equality and equity. While equality strives for equal access to opportunities, equity attempts to ensure equal outcomes—a pursuit fraught with potential risks.
A key factor often overlooked in these discussions and alarming consequence of equity-focused policies is the emergence of a power imbalance rooted in judgment. As the determination of equitable outcomes necessitates ongoing assessments, an elite class of decision-makers arises, wielding the power to shape societal norms and govern the distribution of resources. This concentration of authority inherently fosters inequality and a corrupt undercurrent.
Moreover, the centralization of power cultivates a bottleneck effect, rendering decision-making processes susceptible to inefficiencies and biases. Hence, why there is a scarcity of thriving Marxist societies; the pursuit of equity paradoxically threatens the very ideals it aims to uphold
Great expansion on that point about power collecting. It’s a huge amount of power and it’s often used for very unequal benefit that, shockingly, only helps those with the power.
Democrats continue to discriminate on the basis of race and sex today because in the past there was discrimination on the basis of race and sex. That’s unconstitutional and a violation of the Civil Rights Act the Democrats passed in 1964.
Exactly. DEI is actually against the Civil Rights act. And only one contention; democrats didn’t pass the act. Republicans did and democrats largely opposed.
Michael: Actually the Democrats did not largely oppose the bill. About 2 thirds voted in favor on the several votes in the house and senate. The Republicans generally favored by about 80%. Democratic president Johnson was a strong supporter and, of course, signed the bill into law.
Thanks for bringing this article forward, Michael.
Interestingly, the way that the idea of "equity" was introduced to public discourse in a formal way was via public administration.
"H. George Frederickson’s (1971) exhortations inserted social equity into the canon of public administration theory, research, and practice, joining it with efficiency and effectiveness as a foundational value. And with the performance movement notwithstanding,
James Q. Wilson (1989) asserted that equity is more important than efficiency in the management of government agencies. That administrators should be committed to both good management and social equity is now well accepted, but that was not always the case.
Because the 1968 Minnowbrook Conference became the watershed for popularizing the concept, the meeting becomes the dividing line by which we benchmark the term’s legitimation." ("Social Equity: Its Legacy, Its Promise" by Mary Guy and Sean McCandless:
Many so-called DEI practitioners were not aware of the origins of the term "equity" or "social equity" as Frederickson used it. And the problem with that is, they frame it as an outcomes-based idea to ensure that people who had identities marginalized in the past would experience a retributive sort of justice, even if they are "elites" by many measures of such a phrase.
The problem is not the word; the problem is its interpretation. Life is unfair. And, if institutions and organizations can make policies, structures, and cultures more fair, the benefits are such that I think most people are open to them.
Since the "E" was inserted into the work I have been doing for years, it has shifted to something that I never knew it to be, and the results have been disastrous. Creating the conditions for people to get what they need to make their best contribution to whatever they are working to create value for is a winning way of being. It doesn't and shouldn't be related to a particular outcome, but for most people, the conditions created to shape the best value creation for individuals lead to outcomes they can own without grievance.
Not all need the same things to be successful. That is indisputable. That sort of equality framing is silly. That is. . .
"You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you'll find
You get what you need"
What people need can be understood and we can help each other create this as a reality as much as possible. It is an idea that works for everyone unless an organizational or institutional actor erroneously believes that interdependence doesn't exist.
History matters. The term “separate but equal” has a lot of weight in why people felt that the word “equality” didn’t get at what was being intended. Honestly surprised that wasn’t considered.
That gets into another comment here about the history of the use of the word equity. I thought about going down that route but the essay was going to get too long for the goal I was driving for. I think we’ll need a part 2.
NBC News’ 150 Layoffs Gut Black, Latino, Asian American and LGBTQ+ Diversity Teams
The verticals focused on Black, Latino, Asian American and LGBTQ+ groups will remain, but they come amid a broader shift in media away from diversity efforts
Like you I disagree with Equity being included in the mix but unlike you I think it's because it should be replaced with Justice. In order to have Justice though, a lot of people in power have to admit a lot of things that nobody wants to and then do something about it.
I'd also argue that if DEIA initiatives were wholly transparent and sincere, they'd remove the Diversity part too and replace it with Representation. But then they'd have another problem, because there are arguments to be made about how Just that concept would be, depending on any given context and for similar reasons why Equity often isn't perceived to be.
I don't read your newsletter all that often, but I appreciate the thought you put into systems thinking.
So I'm going to leave all this here in the hopes that you will glean something useful from it.
20 years ago, I had a German boyfriend who didn't understand why his father needed to feel bad about what Nazi Germany did when he hadn't even been born yet. I was in my early 20s, the Patriot Act had just passed and I'd just visited the Nuremberg museum where I saw the Enabling Act of 1933. I was too young, and frankly too drunk, to articulate why my boyfriend was wrongheaded and misguided in his sentiment. But I knew there was something deeply unjust about a world that allowed him to espouse such an inaccurate assessment of the situation.
But goodness do I wish I had. With the rise of the AFD, it's easy to see that he and his peers and the next generations after them only hardened in their feelings of injustice on this topic.
Michelle Murgia, a Sardinian who had enough skin in the game to have successfully written one of the most poignant and, strangely, funny summaries of Fascism broke it down this way. Give it a couple generations... maybe 50-100 years... when people no longer remember what it was like... then they're quick to say everything is better now and/or yet would be even better if it were the way it was then.
And that's where we are. The problem with DEIA is that the US education system has never been and was never at any given moment in time Equitable, Equal or Just. And neither was the job force. As you pointed out, any and/or all attempts, depending on the judge, to equal the playing field were always going to look unfair to one or many subset of people.
And some people in the comments have rightly pointed out that equality still leaves out the question of outcomes or opportunities.
But I doubt very much that DEIA is solely or even mostly responsible for lower standards in medical schools, poetry, universities...
I was told something that stuck in 1980s. I was a child. "Do you know what you call a person who made D's in medical school? A Doctor." Words of wisdom from my uncle, a staunch DEI hater and specialized physician.
As for poetry, I don't think you gave a fair example using someone who gamed the system. All systems can be gamed, there is nothing logical about confusing correlation with causation. So a bad actor got some intentionally "bad" poetry published by lying about who they are. So what?
Poetry has got to be literary art most subject to subjectivity that exists. He could've only fared better had he chosen performance art for his mischief.
As for university entrance exams... Does it matter when the reality is that 54% of Americans read below a 6th grade level? Couldn't the argument be made that THIS is the real reason why universities have had to lower their standards?
In all of these cases, couldn't the argument be made that these standard drops are a reflection of a failed education system that begins in early childhood? Fine Motor Skills, Prosocial Skills, Literacy?
Do you know what you call a person without a degree who may or may not read at a 6th grade level, may or may not be able to tie their shoes and may or may not have ever read a poem in their life? A severely underpaid and overworked preschool teacher in charge of way more children than an ideal adult:student ratio.
It is silly and illogical that the people in the picture aren't in the game and instead behind a fence. And it's equally so to consider the image of Justice in the link I shared, where not only are they still not in the bleachers with everyone else, but they're also ripe for getting socked in the face.
And that's its real death. What the current political wave is doing is just replacing it with systemic nepotism. And maybe that's what some DEI antagonists argue DEI was all along.
But then, we're back to the same problem. Who gets a piece of the rotten pie? If the great equalizer has anything to say about it, maybe nobody. Better than a tourniquet on that unstageable wound? I don't know, but anyway I think we're going to find out one way or the other.
That's fantastic insight, and I agree. Justice would be a good addition. That last panel in the first image you shared is what I was poking at about why the hell we think it's OK for them to still be behind the fence in the first place!! I also agree that representation is risky based on Justice.
Diversity isn't bad. Ironically, based on other comments today, I've got an idea on another essay exploring the paradox that diversity is, by nature, exclusive, not inclusive, and examples of queer and punk culture are prime examples.
In the end, I'm not necessarily against any of these ideas. I do oppose these ideas when they are not analyzed completely and are just espoused as a mantra with no action. When you can't critique your own ideas, they aren't that great.
Thanks for the great comment. It provided a lot of great insight and helped me get to know you better.
I don't know if it helped either of us know me better, but a lot of personal anecdote for sure!
Diversity as exclusive is a provocative take. I'm inclined to doubt it, at least as it relates to more recognizable nature, the one outside of humanity. But within the confines of the human experience? I'm listening. You might be interested in the concept of schizmogenesis and culture abolition, both which run parallel to this possibility.
Justice is one of those concepts that I think EO Wilson touches on when he said that the problem with humanity was paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and god-like technology.
Justice is a moral concept built on our paleolithic desires for retribution and fairness, most often inspired by our emotions of disappointment, terror, grief, envy, jealousy and on. It's not exactly standing on logical legs. And yet, in its most extreme iterations, most of us can recognize injustice.
So how do we enact justice, how do we facilitate it and does it exist in nature?
If you find out, let us know. We've got a 7 year old who is ready to raze the whole mantid species because of what happens to the dad after, and sometimes during mating. Cheers!
I agree with you, but I think equality is just as broad a term as equity. Equality of what? Outcomes?
Great question. Short hand I'd say equality of opportunity. Equity is equality of outcomes.
Equality starts everyone the same.
It's a messy topic but as long as it's not equity, I'm ok.
Yes I agree . Equality of opportunity works well, but it doesn’t fit in a three letter acronym, and is too specific and difficult for political people with agendas to manipulate.
Haha. Right?
That LinkedIn post legitimately made me laugh out loud and this post, like all of your posts, legitimately made me better.
It was sooooo bad. I've just taken to calling people out for their logical fallacies.
You’re very good and entertaining at it
The origin of DEI is interesting inasmuch as it is proof of an astronomical amount of schooling combined with zero actual education. Great riff, Michael.
Abstolutely a lack of education. Especially insofar as another angle is that you can’t have diversity with pure inclusion. Diversity requires either internal or external exclusion. We discussed Punk in a different comment being a function of both and it was mentiond queer is another. It’s an intentional separation, not inclusion, that creates a different enough culture or behavior to be considered diverse.
It depends on how you define "diversity". If it is characterized by separate notions of human kinds (difference) as we exist in that way (we don't), your conclusion is sound.
If it is defined as "any mixture of similarities, differences, and their respective tensions and complexity," the idea of needing to exclude doesn't work.
When we think of it as our reality and inclusive of the things beyond human kinds that we interact with daily (i.e., everything from enviromental diversity to organizational culture, from organizational or industrial type to geographic distinctions) we can transcend the reduced versions of one another and deal with complexity and tension in a way that is clearly about everyone and every contextually relevant thing.
Good points. I think I’m going to write on this topic soon.
Without Equity, DEI has no meaning. It is the entire moral framework for DEI,so it cannot be taken out.
Equity is deliberate discrimination in the present to compensate for discrimination in the past. That is goal of DEI, and that is why Equity cannot be removed from DEI without it collapsing.
And yet it’s also the death of DEI because it is discriminatory and those with the levers use it to manipulate. Catch 22.
Fantastic. I’d just add that equity is just trying to jump to the conclusion of equality. They both have the same goal and, over time, equality results in equity but ironically, equity almost never is achieved and it certainly isn’t equality. What a tangled mess!
That’s funny, I’m having this same conversation with another friend. That’s another topic to untangle for sure.
A lot of this argument hinges on a paragraph in the first section where you state that most people have tolerance for diversity and inclusion. If that were true, maybe I’d agree with you — equality would work better. But equity exists as a value exactly because so many people would prefer to live in a less diverse and inclusive world. Just look at the popularity of the term “woke,” which is a euphemism for intolerance of diversity and inclusion. Equity exists as a more aggressive measure for countering crude and inexcusable intolerance, which is, unfortunately, extremely common.
I disagree. Nonhuman is open to pure D and I. We all draw lines around culture, behavior, etc. In my experience, the least diverse and inclusive are, ironically, those under the banner of woke that you mentioned. There's so much truth to the stereotypical memes.
25 years ago I wrote a paper titled "We are not going to tolerate intolerance" and explored the burgeoning behavior in the left, who used tolerance as a moral cudgel back then, for how intolerant of diversity of thought and inclusion of differing perspectives. It has gotten much less tolerant to diversity and inclusion since.
The most annoying thing is that their diversity is whitewashed and skin deep. It doesn't matter what color or culture you are as long as you think and talk like them. Thomas Sowell writes extensively about this as did Malcolm X.
This article shows how the DEI focus of a major company didn't want actual diversity:
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/are-you-asking-a-fish-to-climb-a
Ideologically and rhetorically, I agree with you sometimes. I think it’s worth thinking through how the left throws the baby out with the bathwater by dismissing arguments that don’t sound ideologically aligned.
But I think you’re giving the right too much of the benefit of the doubt by assuming they want to see diversity in the world when we have critics of “woke” immediately dismissing nonwhite, queer, or non-Christian people outright (e.g,saying they wouldn’t be a passenger in a plane with a black woman pilot. While equity measures aren’t ideal, their purpose is to offer a plan for when this happens. And if you’re right that diversity is important (and I agree with you here too), equity is simply about putting our money where our mouth is so that we’re not just paying lip service to diversity as a value. We can make it happen, too, which will yield good outcomes (because, let’s say it again, diversity is important).
And I loved that article you wrote about the fish — I praised it in the comments. I appreciate how you approach these topics in good faith.
Good points. I don't disagree with those goals. I'd add two additional thoughts.
1. We aren't coded to accept our diversity and inclusion. There is always an us and them.
2. The ironic outcome of pure diversity and inclusion is actually the elimination of diversity and inclusion. Out another way, without an us and them you wouldn't have diversity and you wouldn't need inclusion.
Part of what makes diversity is actually exclusion either internally or externally. Punk music tried to achieve both and, by rejecting inclusivity and by being excluded, created a diverse layer in society. (And now you've got me thinking of a new topic...) 🤓
Love that — punk as a kind of artificially created diversity. The term “queer” functions that way too.
Happy to be a thought partner if you start working on a piece on this topic!
The term “woke” has been appropriated from African-American vernacular and effectively neutralized as a meaningful concept. What it means within its original cultural context is someone who is highly aware of the systemic and cultural dynamics within which they live and who acts on that knowledge accordingly; almost the exact opposite of how the term has been weaponized.
Yup. Not everyone knows this history.
Like many phrases, an original meaning or meaning within a group is warped into something else by another group.
#BLM was similar. It was simply a hashtag tweet in response to Trayvon Martin. Crazy that he was killed not long ago but it's hard to remember all the details. The problems of collective memory ...
I'm also skeptical when Michael isn't critical of the extreme Right.
There's a lot of depth missing in this article. DEI isn't so easily waft aside because it is a critique of liberal democracy. Critiquing the E in DEI is important, but is done poorly.
I used to believe, like Morgan Freeman, that we need to just stop talking about racism. Then it will go away. Well ... history is ugly.
My "ahah!" moment about disbelieving DEI was reading Derrick Bell. Bell theorized the banned acronym, CRT (Critical Race Theory). At first, the permeance of racism repulsed me. But history is an ugly predictor of patterns or themes, even if not a cycle on repeat.
On the one hand slavery was outlawed by democracies around the world, eventually via the UN, yet on the other hand human trafficking continues. In US history, Emancipation, Reconstruction, the Civil Rights of the 60s were marches towards Black freedom; on the other hand, each was a response to continued racism. Lincoln believed he created an equal society, when the Pullman porters were regulated to separate work. LBJ believed he created an equal society, when Blaxploitation broadcast on the radio waves and TV. All of this was traced in Kendi's historical review of racist ideas, though no American needs to read Kendi's "banned book" to understand. DuBois had made similar traces in US history until he passed away mid-20th century.
Yet the Enlightened liberal democracy can transcend discrimination, right?! No, Bell theorized that history indicates no political power can overcome tribalism, bigotry, or race-based discrimination. Brutal, systematic slavery existed before 1619, despite what Hannah-Jones says to condemn the founding of the US. Kingdoms of Africa, and Europe, Empires of Asia -- all had various forms of discriminatory powers that created societies of inequalities. World history appears to support Bell's critical theory. I don't think this is a foreign conclusion for anyone whose read history. People tend to group up based on similarities.
Yet, the triumphalism of equality, liberty, freedom, and Enlightenment ideals are the typical responses. OK, the questions are then: how have liberal democracy created societies that are totally different from any in past history? Does it tear down tribalism? Again US history: German immigrants moved together, like to parts of the Midwest; women grouped together to form societies, like the Women's League and the lesbian communes; Black Exodustors tended to migrate North to cities, not typically out by themselves on the Plains alongside Native people or white settlers. Gays tend to live very close to each other in Blue state cities in "gayborhoods", like Chicago's Boystown. All these tribes form, and there is the obvious problem: the in-group, and the out-group. And the bigger problem: some groups aren't voluntary membership. (Some people cannot simply move from the out-group to the in-group, so my historical references to physically moving is an analogy for metaphysical moves.)
US history has several critics that make the case that nominal equality in law does not create actual equality in society. Americans don't move to wherever they're free to move. They move to be with their "tribe". This has always happened. This is the very heart of the Dunning School and the segregationists concept of 'separate but equal'. It is stunning to me that Americans are not seeing the legal connections back to Plessy v. Ferguson. The criticism of Red-lining was an attempt to consider more evidence of collusion between local municipalities and bankers to recreate group-specific neighborhoods. Levittown, heralded by many US history textbooks as the new form of suburban planning, banned Black residents; and the criticism extended to HOAs after the 1960s Equal Housing laws that continued to discriminate based on less overt characteristics than obvious Black Codes. So evidence of tribalism continues. Bell's CRT isn't all that crazy when seen as unvoluntary tribalism wrapped in legal systems. CRT was meant to only explain American law, but I think it explains all discrimination, even extralegal means, through all history.
There's serious theory and evidence behind the emergence of DEI. It did not conjure out of thin air. Some DEI consultants did abuse the flood of funds. There's been no government reform that wasn't abused, but that doesn't mean Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare all get defunded. Even the Right doesn't get behind that.
On the philosophical side, Rawls' theory of justice is begged. Is affirmative action a legal reverse discrimination, or do laws on the books demonstrate continued discrimination anyways? In other words, racism continues in subverse ways. On the racialized ideas side, does equality in society arrive with assimilation towards a national norm? Or does a pluralistic and multicultural society mean equality has been achieved? Finally, the unmentionables: are separatists correct, and a national identity and cohesion the progressive, next step after primitive tribalism? And the other unmentionable -- meritocracy: does the historical evidence demonstrate that every American is provided, both nominally and in actuality, the same options in our society?
I've found that these questions and points are rarely discussed. We Americans have an idea about equality, yet when we imagine that idea to be real, we don't agree on how to measure it. I'll admit to major reservations about the anti-racist metric of statistical equitable disproportionalities. But if we throw that metric out, how do we measure equality? Interracial marriage rates??
The fundamental question for meritocracy in liberal democracy is: how do we know that every American starts the race at the same line and same time? I cannot come to the oversimplistic, merit-based conclusion that all people who didn't "make it" (-- notice there is an implicit, undisclosed metric going on in this conclusion about "making it" -- ) that these people in a our society simply choose to fail. Some did make horrible choices despite equal starts, yes. I'm not denying free will. But explaining away inequities entirely by free choice is a rather cruel, ignorant overgeneralization that "unburdens" anyone else's choices as affecting outcomes (to borrow Mamala's word salad).
Equality under the law is an oversimplistic answer. If the law created society absolutely, then there would be no crime. Obviously, the reality of society misses the ideals of its laws. So I demand this implicit measuring stick be pulled out and looked at very closely.
I often use the term Woke as a euphemism and find it works well to convey my meaning in polite society. Saying Batshit Crazy would be offensive.
The term “woke” has been appropriated from African-American vernacular and effectively neutralized as a meaningful concept. What it means within its original cultural context is someone who is highly aware of the systemic and cultural dynamics within which they live and who acts on that knowledge accordingly; almost the exact opposite of how the term has been weaponized.
I didn’t know that. Frustrating how that happens.
One issue with outcome based results (like equity per your definition) is that the causes of the outcomes are rarely as simple as the advocates for outcome based results believe. While sexism/racism/etc. may be *a* cause of differing college graduation rates, is it the only cause? The dominant cause? Simply a cofactor of other causes? And how much does dumb luck play a factor in the results?
Human society is not mechanical, where you can ensure the fence posts are all the same height by carefully engineering how you put them in the ground.
Human society is biological. You can plant the same seeds in the same soil, give them the same nutrients and the same water, and the plants won't all end up the same height.
If you want equal heights (equity), the only way to do so is to trim the plants that stand out above the others. That means injustice against the plants that thrived, not justice for the ones that didn't grow as tall.
Vonnegut's Handicapper General has entered the room.
Nailed it. Thomas Sowell hits on these topics in many of his books regarding economics and social policy as well.
Glad you took this conversation on as it’s essential to acknowledge the fundamental difference between equality and equity. While equality strives for equal access to opportunities, equity attempts to ensure equal outcomes—a pursuit fraught with potential risks.
A key factor often overlooked in these discussions and alarming consequence of equity-focused policies is the emergence of a power imbalance rooted in judgment. As the determination of equitable outcomes necessitates ongoing assessments, an elite class of decision-makers arises, wielding the power to shape societal norms and govern the distribution of resources. This concentration of authority inherently fosters inequality and a corrupt undercurrent.
Moreover, the centralization of power cultivates a bottleneck effect, rendering decision-making processes susceptible to inefficiencies and biases. Hence, why there is a scarcity of thriving Marxist societies; the pursuit of equity paradoxically threatens the very ideals it aims to uphold
Great expansion on that point about power collecting. It’s a huge amount of power and it’s often used for very unequal benefit that, shockingly, only helps those with the power.
Democrats continue to discriminate on the basis of race and sex today because in the past there was discrimination on the basis of race and sex. That’s unconstitutional and a violation of the Civil Rights Act the Democrats passed in 1964.
Exactly. DEI is actually against the Civil Rights act. And only one contention; democrats didn’t pass the act. Republicans did and democrats largely opposed.
Michael: Actually the Democrats did not largely oppose the bill. About 2 thirds voted in favor on the several votes in the house and senate. The Republicans generally favored by about 80%. Democratic president Johnson was a strong supporter and, of course, signed the bill into law.
Thanks for bringing this article forward, Michael.
Interestingly, the way that the idea of "equity" was introduced to public discourse in a formal way was via public administration.
"H. George Frederickson’s (1971) exhortations inserted social equity into the canon of public administration theory, research, and practice, joining it with efficiency and effectiveness as a foundational value. And with the performance movement notwithstanding,
James Q. Wilson (1989) asserted that equity is more important than efficiency in the management of government agencies. That administrators should be committed to both good management and social equity is now well accepted, but that was not always the case.
Because the 1968 Minnowbrook Conference became the watershed for popularizing the concept, the meeting becomes the dividing line by which we benchmark the term’s legitimation." ("Social Equity: Its Legacy, Its Promise" by Mary Guy and Sean McCandless:
https://selc.wordpress.ncsu.edu/files/2013/03/Social-Equity-Its-Legacy-Its-Prmise.pdf)
Many so-called DEI practitioners were not aware of the origins of the term "equity" or "social equity" as Frederickson used it. And the problem with that is, they frame it as an outcomes-based idea to ensure that people who had identities marginalized in the past would experience a retributive sort of justice, even if they are "elites" by many measures of such a phrase.
The problem is not the word; the problem is its interpretation. Life is unfair. And, if institutions and organizations can make policies, structures, and cultures more fair, the benefits are such that I think most people are open to them.
Since the "E" was inserted into the work I have been doing for years, it has shifted to something that I never knew it to be, and the results have been disastrous. Creating the conditions for people to get what they need to make their best contribution to whatever they are working to create value for is a winning way of being. It doesn't and shouldn't be related to a particular outcome, but for most people, the conditions created to shape the best value creation for individuals lead to outcomes they can own without grievance.
Not all need the same things to be successful. That is indisputable. That sort of equality framing is silly. That is. . .
"You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you'll find
You get what you need"
What people need can be understood and we can help each other create this as a reality as much as possible. It is an idea that works for everyone unless an organizational or institutional actor erroneously believes that interdependence doesn't exist.
Thanks for sharing that history. It’s facinating how meanings drift over time.
History matters. The term “separate but equal” has a lot of weight in why people felt that the word “equality” didn’t get at what was being intended. Honestly surprised that wasn’t considered.
That gets into another comment here about the history of the use of the word equity. I thought about going down that route but the essay was going to get too long for the goal I was driving for. I think we’ll need a part 2.
DEI is just a fuzzy euphemism for:
Dumb, Erase, Isolate ...
There’s an irony to you “I” when their “I” is very exclusive if you don’t agree or even raise minor concerns.
Here's a new related news item:
NBC News’ 150 Layoffs Gut Black, Latino, Asian American and LGBTQ+ Diversity Teams
The verticals focused on Black, Latino, Asian American and LGBTQ+ groups will remain, but they come amid a broader shift in media away from diversity efforts
Corbin Bolies
October 15, 2025 @ 9:33 AM
...
https://www.thewrap.com/nbc-news-layoffs-number-versant-split/
Interesting.
I see that turd floating at work all the time while people desperatly try to ignore it. It's almost comical.
It really is comical. Especially when it’s not allowed to be stated. Or when it is stated, it sounds so absurd people balk at their own words.
Former DEIA committee chair here, and well versed in the DEIA inner dialogues. My understanding of the image you shared is this one https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1b/ee/fa/1beefaa2aeae48a040c0c253acd50678.jpg, which is, I believe, the real reason why DEI dies.
Like you I disagree with Equity being included in the mix but unlike you I think it's because it should be replaced with Justice. In order to have Justice though, a lot of people in power have to admit a lot of things that nobody wants to and then do something about it.
I'd also argue that if DEIA initiatives were wholly transparent and sincere, they'd remove the Diversity part too and replace it with Representation. But then they'd have another problem, because there are arguments to be made about how Just that concept would be, depending on any given context and for similar reasons why Equity often isn't perceived to be.
I don't read your newsletter all that often, but I appreciate the thought you put into systems thinking.
So I'm going to leave all this here in the hopes that you will glean something useful from it.
20 years ago, I had a German boyfriend who didn't understand why his father needed to feel bad about what Nazi Germany did when he hadn't even been born yet. I was in my early 20s, the Patriot Act had just passed and I'd just visited the Nuremberg museum where I saw the Enabling Act of 1933. I was too young, and frankly too drunk, to articulate why my boyfriend was wrongheaded and misguided in his sentiment. But I knew there was something deeply unjust about a world that allowed him to espouse such an inaccurate assessment of the situation.
But goodness do I wish I had. With the rise of the AFD, it's easy to see that he and his peers and the next generations after them only hardened in their feelings of injustice on this topic.
Michelle Murgia, a Sardinian who had enough skin in the game to have successfully written one of the most poignant and, strangely, funny summaries of Fascism broke it down this way. Give it a couple generations... maybe 50-100 years... when people no longer remember what it was like... then they're quick to say everything is better now and/or yet would be even better if it were the way it was then.
And that's where we are. The problem with DEIA is that the US education system has never been and was never at any given moment in time Equitable, Equal or Just. And neither was the job force. As you pointed out, any and/or all attempts, depending on the judge, to equal the playing field were always going to look unfair to one or many subset of people.
And some people in the comments have rightly pointed out that equality still leaves out the question of outcomes or opportunities.
But I doubt very much that DEIA is solely or even mostly responsible for lower standards in medical schools, poetry, universities...
With the advent of typing, texting, video games, NOT learning how to write in cursive, most people graduate from school without the fine motor skills that people had before the advent of these technologies and the exclusion of handwriting in core education. So much so that people have to take these courses in medical school if they hope to become surgeons. https://imss.org/2020/12/the-hands-have-it-the-importance-of-manual-dexterity-in-medicine/?srsltid=AfmBOoqN01DAZgifu1EZOG3HVDZKtnMgJxae_WKxkp8vTPYOOYNUTfd7 Never mind the studies that suggest handwriting (and reading physical books) makes people smarter.
I was told something that stuck in 1980s. I was a child. "Do you know what you call a person who made D's in medical school? A Doctor." Words of wisdom from my uncle, a staunch DEI hater and specialized physician.
As for poetry, I don't think you gave a fair example using someone who gamed the system. All systems can be gamed, there is nothing logical about confusing correlation with causation. So a bad actor got some intentionally "bad" poetry published by lying about who they are. So what?
Poetry has got to be literary art most subject to subjectivity that exists. He could've only fared better had he chosen performance art for his mischief.
As for university entrance exams... Does it matter when the reality is that 54% of Americans read below a 6th grade level? Couldn't the argument be made that THIS is the real reason why universities have had to lower their standards?
In all of these cases, couldn't the argument be made that these standard drops are a reflection of a failed education system that begins in early childhood? Fine Motor Skills, Prosocial Skills, Literacy?
Do you know what you call a person without a degree who may or may not read at a 6th grade level, may or may not be able to tie their shoes and may or may not have ever read a poem in their life? A severely underpaid and overworked preschool teacher in charge of way more children than an ideal adult:student ratio.
It is silly and illogical that the people in the picture aren't in the game and instead behind a fence. And it's equally so to consider the image of Justice in the link I shared, where not only are they still not in the bleachers with everyone else, but they're also ripe for getting socked in the face.
Whether it's a baseball game or a tree https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c6/21/3b/c6213b948855090b15d63627e9e0918f.jpg... The reality is that DEI was and always will be a generic brand bandage tape placed on an unstageable wound.
And that's its real death. What the current political wave is doing is just replacing it with systemic nepotism. And maybe that's what some DEI antagonists argue DEI was all along.
But then, we're back to the same problem. Who gets a piece of the rotten pie? If the great equalizer has anything to say about it, maybe nobody. Better than a tourniquet on that unstageable wound? I don't know, but anyway I think we're going to find out one way or the other.
To your point, the term JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion) is preferred by many who are actually doing the work.
I like that Acronym. Still don’t like Equity in the mix but the addition of Justice is solid.
That's fantastic insight, and I agree. Justice would be a good addition. That last panel in the first image you shared is what I was poking at about why the hell we think it's OK for them to still be behind the fence in the first place!! I also agree that representation is risky based on Justice.
Diversity isn't bad. Ironically, based on other comments today, I've got an idea on another essay exploring the paradox that diversity is, by nature, exclusive, not inclusive, and examples of queer and punk culture are prime examples.
In the end, I'm not necessarily against any of these ideas. I do oppose these ideas when they are not analyzed completely and are just espoused as a mantra with no action. When you can't critique your own ideas, they aren't that great.
Thanks for the great comment. It provided a lot of great insight and helped me get to know you better.
I don't know if it helped either of us know me better, but a lot of personal anecdote for sure!
Diversity as exclusive is a provocative take. I'm inclined to doubt it, at least as it relates to more recognizable nature, the one outside of humanity. But within the confines of the human experience? I'm listening. You might be interested in the concept of schizmogenesis and culture abolition, both which run parallel to this possibility.
Justice is one of those concepts that I think EO Wilson touches on when he said that the problem with humanity was paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and god-like technology.
Justice is a moral concept built on our paleolithic desires for retribution and fairness, most often inspired by our emotions of disappointment, terror, grief, envy, jealousy and on. It's not exactly standing on logical legs. And yet, in its most extreme iterations, most of us can recognize injustice.
So how do we enact justice, how do we facilitate it and does it exist in nature?
If you find out, let us know. We've got a 7 year old who is ready to raze the whole mantid species because of what happens to the dad after, and sometimes during mating. Cheers!