The Case for DEI: Meritocracy, Discrimination, and the Ongoing Quest for Justice

It would be a deeply cruel logic to use the effects of injustice and discrimination as arguments for their continuation. Yet, in his most recent article against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), Jeb Allen ’27 attempts to do just that. He charges that DEI initiatives are deeply performative, inefficient, and anti-merit. But these arguments themselves betray a deeply shallow commitment to genuine justice, and an ignorant understanding of the actual nature of the injustice. We must, I argue, continue to uphold the value of DEI, and affirm our commitment to the ongoing work of bringing about justice in the United States.

We all must understand, firstly, that the need for DEI did not materialize out of thin air. Each of the three forms of affirmative action Allen lambasts — those intended for the LGBTQ+ community, racial minorities, and women — are themselves responses to unjust, inequitable, and state-sanctioned discrimination.

The American government has historically given each of these groups a certain kind of “special treatment:” that of slavery and Jim Crow — of being prohibited from working, voting, or marrying who you love. Yet, conservatives in those periods did not by and large find themselves angered by those ongoing affronts to our country’s vaunted civic virtues. They did not cry out in dissent when African Americans were fighting under the oppression of Jim Crow, nor when women were unable to work and vote. It was only after the marginalized began liberating themselves that conservatives took issue with the more positive and proactive special treatment that these groups were advocating for. The advent of civil rights legislation, conservatives contended, meant that the problem had been solved.

To be sure, Allen repeatedly acknowledges that a “problem” still does exist — that there is “inequality in American society” and “historical discrimination.” Where he and I differ is with the form and content of its rectification. He writes of educational inequality that “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.” A reasonable view when taken at face value, this “fair shot” philosophy should be seen more truly as evidencing a very empty understanding of the problem at hand.

It must be said that in conceding that the doors of opportunity have been both historically and presently sealed shut for marginalized groups, Allen provides more than enough evidence to verify the claim that meritocracy has never really existed in this country. Businesses, until 1964, were free to only hire white men. Schools were free to discriminate in admissions on the basis of race until 1978. Banks, until 1968, were free to withhold loans on the basis of identity. It would be odd, then, to imply that America achieved its success through meritocracy when this vaunted value was continuously suspended at the behest and benefit of the most privileged classes in American society. White people — more precisely, white men — have been given special treatment in this country since its founding.

Why, then, does Allen take such great issue with DEI? Why is it that special treatment only appears unjust and conspicuous to him when it is meant to benefit marginalized groups? Allen himself concedes that the unjust inequalities themselves have created the achievement disparities he mentions — and yet, he refuses to allow affirmative action to be taken to rectify the issue. It would be absurd, however, to make the effects of discrimination a justification for its perpetuation.

His bitter mentioning of female firefighters and affirmative action in medical school, of the absence of men in childcare and education — his concerns about the merit, wellbeing, and integrity of the people in these positions — must themselves be seen as indicative of a kind of intellectual sleight-of-hand on his behalf. Meritocracy itself has never always been about competence — it has historically been a cloak for the ongoing reproduction of caste privilege. If his concern were really about the competence and integrity of those in these positions, Allen would be wholly at peace with a holistic process that took into account the whole of their personhood — including their identities. In claiming, however, that these initiatives are fundamentally antagonistic to merit-based selection processes, what he is really saying is that he’d prefer a mediocre, rich white man with a 1500 SAT score over a 1400 scorer whose identities and actions have evidenced a deep resilience, competence, and commitment to their work.

Allen, however, also charged that DEI policies are fundamentally of a “performative nature.” The point itself is presented as an indictment of the endeavor in its entirety — as though liberals and leftists would only do away with it if they could see its performative nature for what it is. It must be said, however, that few of us on the left saw it as anything else. We know by and large that corporations rarely take on political initiatives out of genuine concern for justice. The fact of the matter, though, is that there is no reason to dismiss DEI in its entirety because Walmart and Amazon opted into it to buy some goodwill — that would only be to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

DEI initiatives surely are taken on for performative reasons, but this itself only further evidences their political necessity. Corporations rarely ever concede to progress unless pressured or provoked. They would not have rectified their racist and sexist hiring practices or their inequitable pay differences without external pressure, nor without a newly codified set of policies to abide by. DEI policies, then, only serve to ensure that these callous corporations make good on their so-called commitments to justice.

We now come upon the charge that DEI is itself a surface-level solution to a much larger problem. In this regard, Allen and I surprisingly agree. It must be said however that even as our diagnoses of the problem are similar, our solutions radically diverge. Allen would have it that the best way to rectify historical injustice is through a slew of piecemeal reforms. But this view of justice is again too shallow. Genuine justice can never be brought about by affording marginalized groups a bigger and better space in the American house; it is the house itself that must be radically restructured. If the injustice is to be wholly rectified, what is needed, among other things, is economic redistribution and a more real democratization of political power.

I must be clear, however, that it would be wrong to dismiss the value of DEI simply because it does not solve the whole problem. Nothing short of a revolution would do that. Still, DEI initiatives continue to uplift the lives of many of the marginalized — to continue to bring us all one step closer to equality. To wholly dismiss it because of its imperfections would be to fall into a kind of deeply corrosive and unproductive all-or-nothing manner of thinking.

DEI must still be seen as an extremely valuable political tool. Once more: It would be absurd to use the effects of discrimination as arguments for its continuation — and, doubly so, to hold the marginalized to a standard that this country has indeed never held itself to. Yet, Allen is correct in that we need earnest deliberation regarding the methods by which we should rectify these ongoing injustices. Caustic moralism and bitter ad hominem attacks against those we disagree with will only prove inimical to our ends in this regard — degrading our character just as their prejudices degrade theirs. In committing ourselves to progress, we must also commit ourselves to the complicated and troubling work of engaging with our adversaries in an effort to realize a more perfect union.