Academia Needs Uncomfortable, Unpopular, but Necessary Debates on DEI

Within liberal circles such as Amherst, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies have been described as a fair and effective way to right America’s wrongs. To our campus's detriment, conversations critiquing them are rare, especially from a conservative standpoint. As Aaron Holton ’25’s article critiquing DEI argued, those who oppose the liberal consensus here are frequently seen as having lesser character than those who agree or remain silent. If history has proven anything, with enough social pressure and the absence of genuine political discourse, even the most illogical ideas seem rational. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that DEI policies are completely illogical, the dismissal of biological differences between sexes, the prioritization of race over merit in the workforce, and inconsistency between actions taken and their argued intention all warrant serious discussion. Rather than addressing the roots of inequality within American society, we have accepted ineffective, performative gestures that give a false appearance of growth, but instead reinforce damaging stereotypes that minorities are incapable of doing as good a job. While DEI was created with the noble intention of correcting historical discrimination, meaningful discussion is needed to determine whether our current approach is helpful, or whether we are inadvertently making the problem worse.

In 2024, the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) announced the creation of a DEI Bureau and released a video claiming, “You want to see someone that responds to your house, or your emergency, whether it’s a medical call or a fire call, that looks like you. It gives that person a bit more ease knowing that someone might understand their situation a bit better,” before shortly cutting to a graphic highlighting “only about 5% of firefighters are women.” I couldn’t help but think about how out of touch with reality this seemed. I think anyone trapped in a burning building couldn’t care less what diversity statistics their firefighter meets and hope that the closest thing to Superman sweeps in to save them.

But that’s not all. Later in the video, Kristine Larson, while downplaying the idea that women can’t fulfill the job of a firefighter, mocks critiques such as “you aren’t strong enough to do this,” or “you couldn’t carry my husband out of a fire,” responding with, “he got himself in the wrong place if I have to carry him out of a fire.” Appalled at the video, I couldn’t help but marvel at the situational irony that, yes, though there are fewer physical tasks done by firefighters like accompanying ambulances or performing first-aid duties, by far the most important part of their job is to literally carry people out of burning buildings — regardless of why there is a fire. The video serves as an excellent example of how it seems to be more acceptable for hyper-liberal audiences to make a disturbing joke at the expense of people's lives — a mindset that, alarmingly, seems to reflect the ideals of the LAFD — rather than confront the uncomfortable reality that DEI policies may in fact pose a threat to public safety when implemented in life-threatening professions.

On average, men are about 10-12% faster than women, have 40-50% more upper-body muscle mass, 25-30% greater lower-body muscle mass, a 15-20% higher VO2 max, a higher cardiac output, and larger lungs and hearts, even when body size is accounted for. Furthermore, studies have shown that when following the same strength training program, men experience greater overall growth in strength, power, and endurance than women, making it unlikely that an academy’s training regimen could fully compensate for these biological differences. Although women have advantages in ultra-endurance events due to higher fat stores and better fat metabolism and flexibility due to differences in muscle and joint structure, men have an advantage in many of the critical physical attributes necessary for life-saving jobs, and the widely-accepted scientific trend should not be ignored. Considering that Steve Prziborowski, a prominent ex-deputy chief of training who has written four books on firefighting, estimated that fewer than 5% of the candidates applying for a firefighter position with a department will get the job on average, the odds that female candidates with significant physical disadvantages will outperform their male competitors becomes extremely unlikely — making 5% of the LAFD being women understandable. It’s also noteworthy that, of the approximately 90,000 female firefighters in the country, 72,400 (80%) are unpaid volunteers in non-physical positions.

Does this mean women can’t or shouldn’t be allowed to hold such jobs? Of course not. Some of the most praiseworthy women in the world fight our fires, police our streets, and defend our nation, and I am so glad soldiers such as Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester — the first female U.S. Army soldier to receive the Silver Star for direct combat action — help protect our great nation. Moreover, there are plenty of female athletes at this school who are far better in their sport than I am at mine, and I’m grateful that I was born in a generation that embraces women’s sports, recognizing their effectiveness in improving confidence and self-esteem, mental health, academic achievement, leadership skills, and professional success. Still, the reason men and women compete in separate sports leagues is not sexism, but because the biological differences between sexes would make interplay wholly unfair. A key example is when the FC Dallas under-15 boys team defeated the U.S. Women's national soccer team, the most successful team in the history of the women’s FIFA tournament, 5-2 in a 2017 scrimmage. This loss came two years after the U.S. women's national team’s third FIFA World Cup in 2015 and two years before their fourth in 2019.

It would be unwise to claim, as our new Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth did, that women “should not be serving in combat.” However, it would be just as misguided to ignore the clear biological and genetic differences between men and women, as well as the reality that jobs that require significant physical strength are naturally more likely to attract male applicants and be better suited for men, leading to disproportionate representation in these fields. Although many argue that DEI doesn’t lower standards but instead broadens the pool of qualified applicants by encouraging participation from underrepresented groups, after our military realized that 44% of women were failing the Army physical fitness test compared to 7% of men from October 2020 to April 2021, it lowered passing standards for women and older soldiers, suggesting such arguments are simply false. Considering the escalating geopolitical tensions, it’s deeply terrifying that our military is not only misleading us about not lowering standards, but also more focused on optics than ensuring peak combat effectiveness.

Beyond efforts to achieve gender equality within physically demanding occupations, racial equity and inclusion efforts outside these professions come with problems, too. The first field that comes to mind where meritocracy should be paramount is medicine, yet it’s one most impacted by diversification policies. Research from the Association of American Medical Colleges (2013–2015) shows that medical school acceptance rates vary significantly by race for students with similar MCAT scores and GPAs. For applicants with MCAT scores between 24–26 and a GPA of 3.2–3.39, Asian students had a 6.5% acceptance rate, White students 8.2%, Hispanic students 30.9%, and Black students 58.7%. With MCAT scores of 27–29, those numbers increased to 13.9% for Asian students, 19% for White students, 43.7% for Hispanic students, and 75.1% for Black students. For applicants with MCAT scores of 27–29 and a GPA of 3.4–3.59, Asian students had a 20.4% acceptance rate, White students 30.6%, Hispanic students 61.7%, and Black students 81.1%. While it is true that racial and socioeconomic inequality has resulted in unequal educational environments, rather than lowering admissions standards for certain racial groups, we should focus on early intervention, education reform, and increasing scholarship support within underfunded neighborhoods to give all Americans a fair shot from the beginning. Just because merit was historically rigged doesn’t mean the answer is to rig it in the other direction, creating a continuous cycle of shifting disadvantages rather than achieving true fairness.

American academia’s prioritization of racial and ethnic characteristics over merit has taken root even within a profession as vital as life itself, prompting the question of whether it’s a safety concern to compromise skill for the sake of having diverse doctors. Going back to the LAFD’s justifications for diversifying their workforce, I’m not sure how many Americans would truly rather have a doctor “who looks like them” than the most qualified doctor imaginable, yet this is the ideology much of American academia has framed as ignorant to question. Even though the differences ignored to prioritize diversity may be so minor where a university or employer may argue that the difference is acceptable to bypass, a second or millimeter in some professions very well may be the difference between life and death, resulting in preventable lives lost. Rather than agreeing to address the root causes of inequality and support initiatives such as strengthening family structures, criminal justice reform, and reforming welfare to reduce government dependency, we have instead decided to “fix” the deeper issues of inequality at the point of employment, ultimately kicking the can further down the road.

If our commitment to equality only extends to surface-level solutions — such as propping up underqualified individuals into roles at the point of employment — rather than taking the steps necessary for equalizing the playing field, I fear DEI initiatives are as effective at healing America’s racial and gender injustice as slapping a Band-Aid on a 6-inch gash: a superficial fix for a deep, complex problem. Though it is true that studies show diversity can enhance performance within the workforce, corporate DEI often focuses on surface-level quotas to appease the public rather than fostering meaningful internal reform, reducing DEI to a marketing strategy rather than its potential for real progress.

The recent scaling back of DEI efforts by major corporations, many of which publicly align with liberal political values, including Target, Meta, Walmart, Amazon, McDonalds, Ford, Lowes, Boeing, Toyota, Coors, Harley-Davidson, John Deere, and more should be a glaring example that much of corporate America cares about diversity as long as it’s profitable and popular — an unsustainable model for change. Corporate America cleverly ramped up DEI initiatives during the height of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020, only to quietly cut them later when pressure subsided, creating the illusion of commitment to progress while enough societal pressure kept Americans from questioning the effectiveness of such measures. If the convenient fluctuation of DEI initiatives doesn’t already convince you of their performative nature, the annual phenomenon of corporate America adorning its logos with rainbow colors for pride month, but abstaining from displaying their coveted values of tolerance in their Middle Eastern branches should do so.

Furthermore, DEI has been shown to backfire. A 2012 study found that “diversity hires” often experience declines in confidence, self-perception, and professional identity, leading to struggles in workplace acceptance and integration. While many may rightly argue that minorities will always face challenges in being seen as equally qualified — DEI or not — the reality is that DEI initiatives often cast doubt on whether a job was earned based on merit or simply given because of an underrepresented physical characteristic. This allows others to dismiss the accomplishments of minorities under the veil of DEI as long as such initiatives exist, regardless of whether that skepticism is justified. The Democratic Party’s steadfast embrace of widespread diversity quotas has led many to unfairly diminish the successful careers of accomplished minorities, labeling them as mere products of a machine that prioritizes physical characteristics over individual merit. Although I know DEI initiatives started as a well-intentioned idea to right the wrongs of America’s past, I’m worried DEI initiatives are further perpetuating racism rather than reversing it, creating a society antithetical to the American Dream we espouse.

Lastly, while DEI initiatives may seem fair, to what extent do we make sure racial and gender imbalances are equalized to account for historical biases? Should we also be mandating 50% female diversity quotas in physically demanding fields such as construction and oil rig workers, loggers, coal miners, truck drivers, garbage collectors, and welders, where men make up the overwhelming majority of the workforce — a factor contributing to men accounting for 92% of workplace fatalities in 2023 and having a life expectancy nearly 5.8 years shorter than women in the U.S.? On the other hand, should we push for more men in female-dominated professions such as healthcare, psychology, education, and childcare, or is it only a one-way street? If your honest answer is that DEI policies should be a one-way street, is their true purpose to balance out the historical biases that have discriminated against employment? Or is it something else?

In a time characterized by heightened polarization and gridlock, academia should serve its intended purpose and pave the way for sincere dialogue on what is the most fair and effective way to right the historical wrongs committed against minorities in America, not shun those raising the unpopular, legitimate critiques that current DEI efforts may be inadvertently exacerbating our social divide. I don’t doubt for a second that such policies pushed by the Democratic Party have good intentions and are aimed to right our country’s wrongs, nor am I advocating to abolish any and all efforts to diversify our workforce where minority representation is sparse. But I maintain that uncomfortable dialogue recognizing biological realities between sexes, maintaining meritocracy, and rejecting performative gestures is necessary on college campuses across America to determine how we move forward with this essential task, and Amherst College should be the first.