Tuesday, May 13, 2025

Charity Hires: How DEI Insults Minorities and Rewards Mediocrity

 


DEI tells minorities, “You’re too weak to compete, so here’s a trophy for showing up.” That’s not empowerment—it’s racial infantilization disguised as equity. Simply put, DEI programs are modern-day plantations: minorities are the sharecroppers, corporations are the masters, and equity is the illusion that keeps them begging for validation.

The DEI industry has become America’s most expensive therapy session—only it keeps diagnosing confidence issues in people who never asked to lie on the couch. It was born out of a noble impulse: to help fix the generational consequences of racism, exclusion, and segregation. But somewhere along the way, the mission morphed into something less about opportunity and more about optics. And now, President Trump is wielding the executive axe, dismantling what his supporters call a performative and patronizing system—a system that treats capable minorities like fragile ornaments needing constant polishing.

Once hailed as a progressive bridge to equity, DEI—short for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—has instead cemented a new stereotype: that minorities need a leg up not because of past injustice, but because they supposedly can’t keep up. Trump’s bold reversal of these programs may read as controversial in elite media circles, but for many Americans—minorities included—it’s a breath of fresh air in a space long filled with toxic patronization. As the saying goes, when you help someone up a ladder, don’t chain them to it.

What began as a healing remedy has turned into an institutional crutch. In theory, DEI policies were meant to widen the gate for all. In practice, they built a side entrance labeled “Special Access,” and then forced minorities to use it. College admissions are one of the most glaring examples. A Black student gets accepted into Harvard, and whispers start flying: Was it merit… or mercy? The student, once excited, now bears the burden of proving they belong—not just to others, but to themselves. DEI, in effect, replaces one kind of discrimination with another: the assumption that your skin tone, not your skill set, got you through the door.

In the corporate boardroom, it gets even worse. A talented Latina is promoted to a high-level executive role, but the congratulatory smiles are thinly veiled suspicions. Was she the best… or just the brownest? What should be a moment of triumph gets buried beneath the weight of implied inferiority. Even when minority professionals earn their place, DEI policies warp public perception into seeing their success as a handout. It’s like giving someone a medal and whispering, You didn’t really win. We just didn’t want to look bad.

This phenomenon is not just limited to education or business. It bleeds into entertainment, public contracting, and even the military. Directors in Hollywood now scramble to diversify casts, checking demographic boxes rather than casting based on talent. Military officers rise through the ranks while skeptics question whether their stars were earned or granted by committee. Government contracts are increasingly awarded to minority-owned businesses under the assumption that inclusion is the endgame. But many competitors quietly ask, Was it the best proposal—or the right skin tone?

The irony is bitter. DEI was born from the ashes of Jim Crow, redlining, and school segregation. Back then, affirmative action was a necessary intervention—a fire extinguisher thrown into a house engulfed in racial flames. But now, the fire’s been out for decades, and we’re still drenching the ruins with gallons of policy water. Too much water drowns the seed, and instead of growing a stronger, self-reliant generation of minorities, DEI policies often soak ambition in suspicion and dependency.

Polls repeatedly show that Americans overwhelmingly prefer merit-based systems. A 2023 Pew Research study found that 74% of Americans—including a majority of Black and Hispanic respondents—believe race should not factor into college admissions. The landmark 2023 Supreme Court ruling against Harvard confirmed what many had long sensed: that race-based preferences were no longer just unconstitutional—they were corrosive. When a rich Black teen from Beverly Hills is chosen over a poor White teen from coal country, it's no longer about righting historical wrongs. It becomes what Justice Roberts called “racial balancing for its own sake,” or as critics frame it, elitism wearing a dashiki.

Then there’s the paradoxical effect DEI has had on one of America’s most academically successful groups: Asian Americans. At elite institutions like Yale and Harvard, admissions policies have quietly penalized Asian applicants for being “too qualified.” These schools invented categories like “personality” to justify why straight-A students with near-perfect SAT scores were passed over. A 2018 investigation into Harvard admissions found that Asian applicants consistently scored lower in subjective ratings like likability, despite excelling in objective metrics. If excellence becomes a liability, then we’ve redefined fairness into fiction.

Corporate DEI programs are no less hypocritical. Google, for instance, funneled over $250 million into DEI initiatives. And yet, in 2021, several Black employees filed lawsuits alleging systemic discrimination and retaliation. One even described working at Google as a place where “diversity was preached, not practiced.” What good is a DEI consultant who charges six figures to preach about unconscious bias while doing nothing to address actual hostility in the workplace? It’s a case of treating the fever, not the infection.

Trump’s decision to dismantle DEI frameworks isn’t some act of revenge against progress. Rather, it is, in the eyes of supporters, a needed reboot. The argument isn’t that racism no longer exists—but that structural handouts are the wrong way to fight it. Empowerment doesn’t come from being pitied. It comes from proving people wrong. And countless minority Americans have done exactly that. Nigerian immigrants in the U.S. routinely outperform every other demographic in education and income. Oprah Winfrey, born into poverty, became a billionaire mogul without a DEI lifeline. Robert F. Smith built his investment empire through brilliance, not bias workshops. Justice Clarence Thomas, who fiercely opposed affirmative action, once said it “tells Black folks they’re not good enough.” That critique has aged like fine wine.

It’s not about colorblindness. It’s about clear-eyed confidence. DEI once served a purpose in an America still bearing the scars of segregation. But as the saying goes, a medicine that overstays its welcome becomes a poison. By continuing to implement race-based quotas, we risk convincing a new generation that their value is cosmetic, not intrinsic. When every achievement is viewed through the lens of identity politics, success itself becomes suspect. And that’s a tragedy no diversity seminar can fix.

So what’s the alternative? It’s not silence—it’s standards. The goal should be to lift everyone up by challenging everyone equally. That means quality education in poor neighborhoods, criminal justice reform, economic investment, and yes, rooting out real discrimination when it appears. But none of that requires a DEI officer with a six-figure salary and a checklist of buzzwords. It requires honesty, competition, and faith in human potential.

Trump’s critics will scream regression. But for many Americans—especially those who resent being viewed as charity cases—this is restoration. A resetting of the national thermostat after decades of identity-based climate control. It’s not “going backward.” It’s pressing forward on level ground.

Because in the end, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and DEI has become a pothole-riddled detour to nowhere. Let merit be the map. Let courage be the compass. And let all Americans, regardless of race, walk the same road—not because of who they are, but because of what they can do.

 

 

 

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Feelings, Not Facts: The Politics of Consumer Sentiment Lies

  Consumer sentiment polls are political mood rings—ask a Republican, get a rainbow; ask a Democrat, get a thunderstorm. Either way, it’s em...