Where/Why Did DEI Go Wrong?
I've been thinking recently about the impact DEI has had on our nation. When did it all begin. Probably in the 60’s (Civil Rights Movement), then Affirmative Action (1965) gaining prominence in the 2000’s. Obama supported it. And some refer to the DEI boom of 2020, the beginning of the Biden-Harris era. Certainly it has been perpetuated under administrations headed by Democrat politicians. What is DEI really? Diversity Equity and Inclusion. Clearly the words themselves suggest the focus is not on abilities, intellect, or skills, but on the creation of a mixture, to be fair to those that feel maligned and to include whoever and whatever. But when it comes to hiring people for a specific job or purpose how can you ignore the need for a individual that has the ability or the credentials to accept the responsibility for which they will be engaged.
The focus of DEI was initially qualified minorities, underrepresented groups, yet it seems to have been blacks, and as to “qualified” many concerns have arisen. In an article, The “DEI Myth Debunked,” by Michael Smith, he immediately makes the point, “Black professionals, despite being objectively more qualified for the same jobs, are forced to overachieve just to be considered – while a staggering number of white hires waltz in with mediocrity, nepotism, and a LinkedIn recommendation from Uncle Bob.” He discusses hiring practices that favor “the white and well-connected.” He provides little evidence of hiring based on qualifications but charts and graphs based on more white hires that blacks.
A sidenote regarding minorities. There have always been “underrepresented groups.” Gays, trans, people of all shapes and colors. They lived among us all and generally were not a bother. They found their peer group and areas and were left alone, as in Key West, FL, Providence, RI, in Paris, The Crazy Horse and Folies Bergere. The DEI trend in many ways used these minorities as an attack mechanism against the majority claiming they were not accepted, and requiring acceptance. The liberals assisted by the media were pushing an agenda made obvious by the dramatic emphasis on DEI. This then raised concerns and the focus on results. Then signs of reverse discrimination became more evident.
The initial goal of DEI may not have been to hire unqualified individuals, but to insure qualified non-whites (which is the emphasis of most articles on the subject, whites vs all others) were given proper consideration. This makes sense, but the outcomes have, in my observation, deviated from the original objective. There are examples I can reference, such as Kamala Harris for VP, Harvard’s President Claudine Gay, Kantanji Jackson Brown on the SCOTUS, Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, and Biden’s Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, all people of color that lack the best qualifications for their posts. Then there were a couple of transgender persons in the Biden camp, such as Rachel Levine in Health and Human Services, and Sam Brinton in the Department of Energy (fired after caught stealing a woman’s luggage off an airport baggage carousel and wearing the clothes), among others, for which there were more qualified persons that could have held those positions.
Over time departments created to administer DEI policies were staffed by DEI candidates, to the exclusion of blacks (4%), but mostly white, may I say liberal, females (gender identity - 78%). What then happens, well, a combination of cronyism and favoritism towards minorities, as well as a disregard for qualifications necessary to carry out the tasks to be assigned. Race based hiring then became a trend, as conducted by Air Force General Charles Q. Brown Jr., hiring for the military and promoting for the sake of “diversity.” And the case Diane Runkel vs City of Springfield, Ill (2022) - a long-serving experienced white City employee was denied a managerial position for which fully qualified when the mayor, for touted reasons of diversity, hired a black male, a person who had reported to Runkel, with significantly less experience. In the latter case a white woman was denied, somewhat unusual, as gender diversity was also part of DEI, but most often the gender was other than male or female, more the LGBTQ+ variety. The irony in all this is that whites became the minority. And so it happened that whites were not even considered.
A claim that “DEI encourages hate against white people” has been proven false at the executive level, but within the ranks there appears to have evolved elements of black privilege, where blacks believe they have a leg up on most jobs because of color, not ability. The stigma of ‘racism’ is voiced all too frequently in the media and elsewhere, by blacks on CNN, The View, and other outlets, which I contend is a result of DEI, although not DEI alone. If a black is criticized, it is ‘racism,’ or denied a promotion, ‘racism,’ or arrested for shop-lifting, ‘racism,’ or challenged for their way of thinking (in politics especially regarding Trump and his administration of policies), ‘racism.’ And if not “racism” then it’s “discrimination.”
Combine the displaced direction of DEI with the deterioration of our national education system, from elementary school through university where concerns for image and sensitivities have for far too long (decades) allowed students to graduate to higher grades while not ready or able to properly read, write or do math at grade level. The ‘trophy for every participant’ way of thinking has degraded the competitive nature of our society and the goal of achievement, learning and bettering oneself for the good of not just self, but our nation as a whole. It is a known fact that our institutions of education are staffed with a vast majority of liberals; I say this wondering whether an overriding progressive viewpoint has negatively influenced the quality of the results of our system. Our schools are failing, and it may be due in part to the national teachers union. The union’s protective role where teachers are seldom measured for the results of their students, thus perpetuating standards of mediocracy, and not achievement.
We must credit the parents that keep the pedal to the floor encouraging their children, from even prior to kindergarten, to learn, to love learning, to compete, to have self-esteem, to be individuals, and know they are loved and play an important role in society; but they must be able to contribute.
There is a case in Tennessee where student William A. (graduated with a 3.4 GPA but was illiterate) was denied the free public education for which he was entitled (under IDEA), and Aleysha Ortiz in Connecticut (Hartford County), graduated with honors, accepted in the University of Connecticut. Graduating High School, neither could read or write. In each case they were enrolled in IEA (individual education programs)(cutting and pasting from oral reporting) that obviously did not work, the basics, actually reading and writing, ignored by the educators.
The results of testing of students nationally reflect a troubled public education system, with reading and math comprehension at levels below 60%, and in some cities less than 45%. A policy analyst, Hannah Schmid, reviewing the Illinois State Board of Education’s report card, writes, “State test scores are in for Chicago public schools and fewer than 1-in-3 students could read and fewer than 1-in-5 do math at their elementary school grade level (2024). Among Chicago's 11th grades, only 22.4% could read at grade level and 18.6% performed math proficiently.…Both reading and math (were) below 2019 levels." The 2019 date is significant because that is the year prior to Covid. Other major cities, such as Los Angeles, Philadelphia and New York, show proficiency levels significantly less than what they should be.
Reading is a wonderful thing, important for everyone, however there is clear evidence that students are not reading for enjoyment, mostly because they are not able to read at acceptable levels. Children not properly supervised are spending more time on their phones on social media, watching YouTube, and other video outlets, instead of learning independently, exploring ideas and theories. There is a lack of understanding of civics, history (world, American, Presidential, et al), religion and our Constitution. Objectivity and debate are essential, being open to even opposing thoughts and ideas with an independent mind.
The lack of education is important to the DEI movement, and has impacted any chance it might work, in my view, negatively. It is those meeting the lowest of standards that suffer the most in terms of equity, and are not generally included due to their lack of skills, abilities, and intellect related directly to their reading and math aptitude. They then become the candidates for DEI positions. They are not prepared to do the jobs for which they may be hired, while checking the box for fulfilling the DEI quota. All too often someone else needs to do the work required for the DEI hire, or the DEI causes their department or business to be less efficient, even prone to error, and in turn less competitive.
The outcomes prove DEI’s good intentions have been wronged by our education system, a want by politicians and business leaders to appear progressive, liberal, or accommodating, in some cases required by government edict, and such programs or requisites should to be disbanded. What America does need is attention to the details of educating our children, our future leaders, and making America the beacon of learning to the world anew.
Let’s educate all Americans first, insure reading and writing standards are achieved before elevating children to higher levels. Self-esteem comes with understanding and knowledge. Progressing up the ladder when the next rung is not attainable does not work and in doing so students will become more bitter towards others, feeling inadequate as they cannot compete. They will then find other outlets for their emotions. And if it’s not knowledge they seek then provide vocational training that suits their aptitude and abilities. That will enhance belonging and self-esteem too. Have a talent, a skill, and a means to earn a living. That is the purpose of education.
Advocates for DEI suggest it can enhance belonging, reduce biases, and provide economic benefits, but I contend a proper education would reduce DEI reliance and achieve a greater sense of belonging and acceptance. Let’s not make DEI even necessary; I’d prefer having hiring standards more color blind. Interview candidates from behind a screen. Do not require race or gender be a box checked on a resume. There is a merit-focused trend under Trump of MEI, Merit, Excellence, Intelligence, which I can understand, however it does not address the critical need for education, rigorous standards, holding underperformers back, and insuring special needs are met with the right kind of attention and oversight.
Requiring DEI in hiring, having departments whose sole role is to monitor DEI applications, is akin to graduating students who are not ready for the next higher grade or the next chapter in their lives. It is as simple as that. We do a greater disservice to our citizens when we place them where they are not able to be of service. We need our education system to be the guarantor of our students being able to develop their unique talents, acquire practical skills, and pursue paths that align with their strengths and societal needs.
by
Thomas W. Balderston
Author and Blogger
Visit Understand-Islam.com too.
