The Fatal Flaw in DEI: Why Identity Over Merit Endangers America

 

By prioritizing diversity over merit, DEI policies send the dangerous message that identity is more important than competence, leading to a decline in innovation and productivity across industries. The failure of the Secret Service in protecting former President Donald Trump demonstrates the real-life consequences of focusing on DEI quotas rather than hiring the most competent individuals for the job.

It seems like diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies are flipping the script on the American Dream. Instead of emphasizing merit, hard work, and individual achievement, these policies have turned the focus toward identity, shaking the foundation of what makes America strong. By shifting attention away from skill and competence, DEI initiatives are hurting innovation and progress across many industries. The problem goes beyond mere ideology—it’s becoming clear that these policies, in their current form, might be doing more harm than good to both the country and the very people they claim to help.

At first glance, the goals of DEI policies seem noble. Who doesn’t want a more inclusive and equitable society? But a closer look reveals that these initiatives have become less about achieving equality and more about satisfying quotas. By prioritizing identity over merit, DEI policies risk undermining the very fabric of America’s meritocratic society. This is particularly problematic when people are hired or promoted to fulfill diversity targets rather than because they are the best fit for the job.

Take, for instance, the impact of DEI on minority groups. While DEI policies aim to uplift these groups, they often unintentionally send a condescending message. Imagine being hired for a position not because of your qualifications or talent, but because of the color of your skin or your gender. The underlying message is clear: “You weren’t really the most qualified, but we need you to check a box.” Far from empowering, this reinforces a sense of inferiority and perpetuates the idea that some individuals cannot succeed without special treatment.

The Secret Service is a prime example of the dangers of focusing on DEI over competence. In 2017, when a man jumped the White House fence and roamed the grounds for more than 15 minutes before being apprehended, questions arose about the agency’s effectiveness. In a 2020 report, it was revealed that the agency had been under pressure to diversify its ranks, which resulted in some hires being made to meet DEI goals rather than to ensure the highest levels of capability and readiness. When an agency tasked with protecting the president of the United States is more focused on hitting diversity benchmarks than on hiring the best people for the job, there are real consequences. Former President Donald Trump, in fact, came close to losing his life due to this failure in the ranks of the Secret Service. The agency had recruited individuals not based on their skills or experience, but rather on their identity, leaving the safety of the nation’s highest office vulnerable.

It’s not just the Secret Service that has suffered from the DEI approach. Across corporate America, institutions are facing similar problems. Major companies, including Google, Microsoft, and Amazon, have all implemented DEI policies that favor diversity hires over merit-based recruitment. While these policies are presented as ways to bring about social justice, the end result has often been a decrease in innovation and productivity. When employees are hired for reasons other than their skills or expertise, it impacts the performance of the entire organization. Some departments at these tech companies have seen a drop in performance and a rise in internal tension as a result of these misguided policies.

DEI advocates argue that increasing diversity leads to better decision-making and improved outcomes. However, research shows that it’s not diversity alone that drives innovation—it’s the combination of diversity and competence. For instance, a study published by the Harvard Business Review in 2016 found that diverse teams tend to perform better, but only when the team members are highly skilled and competent in their respective fields. Diversity without merit is simply diversity for diversity’s sake, and it does little to enhance an organization’s overall performance.

But it’s not just in the corporate world where DEI policies are having a negative impact. Educational institutions have also been affected. Many universities now place more emphasis on DEI initiatives than on academic rigor. In some cases, professors have been hired based on their identity rather than their teaching ability or research accomplishments. This has led to concerns that students are receiving a subpar education, as faculty members who were chosen to fulfill diversity quotas may not be the most qualified individuals to teach the subject matter.

One infamous example is Evergreen State College in Washington. In 2017, the college made headlines when a professor spoke out against a campus-wide event that encouraged white students and faculty to leave the campus for a day. The ensuing protests revealed deep divisions within the college community, divisions that had been exacerbated by the college’s focus on identity politics and DEI policies. The situation spiraled out of control, leading to the resignation of several faculty members and a drop in student enrollment. The emphasis on DEI had created a toxic environment, where ideological conformity was prioritized over academic excellence and critical thinking.

Furthermore, DEI policies may actually contribute to the very divisions they seek to eliminate. By constantly highlighting differences in race, gender, and other identity markers, these policies encourage people to view each other primarily through the lens of identity, rather than as individuals. This focus on identity politics risks deepening societal divides, as people become more concerned with how they are perceived based on their race or gender than on their accomplishments or abilities.

Even government policies have not been immune to the negative impact of DEI. The Biden administration, for example, has made DEI a cornerstone of its agenda, directing federal agencies to implement diversity initiatives across the board. However, critics argue that this emphasis on diversity comes at the expense of efficiency and effectiveness. For instance, the Department of Defense has faced criticism for prioritizing diversity in its recruitment and promotion practices, potentially putting national security at risk.

It is important to recognize that promoting diversity is not inherently a bad thing. A truly inclusive society is one that values individuals for their unique contributions and abilities, regardless of their background. However, when diversity becomes the sole focus, and merit is pushed aside, it can lead to unintended consequences that hurt both individuals and society as a whole.

Perhaps the biggest irony of all is that DEI policies, which were designed to foster equality and inclusion, may end up doing the opposite. By emphasizing identity over merit, these policies risk creating a society where people are judged not by the content of their character, but by the color of their skin or their gender. And in a world where identity politics reign supreme, competence may very well become a thing of the past. At this rate, we’ll all be diverse but equally clueless.