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