DEI: The Myth of Merit and the Reality of Bias

An illustrated corporate boardroom meeting.

Intro

The hot topic of the day has been DEI. Since taking office, Trump and his allies have aggressively targeted DEI programs, seeking to dismantle policies aimed at fostering diversity and inclusion in workplaces, schools, and government institutions. In a classless move, he went so far as to blame DEI the moment a US service member piloting the helicopter that crashed into a commercial plane was found to be a woman — a disgusting and demeaning thing for someone to do at any rung of the social ladder, especially the president. Before her body had even been recovered or identified by her family, Trump was tacitly calling her unqualified simply for being a woman. Beyond being deeply disrespectful, this is an insult to the countless service members who dedicate their lives to protecting this country.

It’s also hypocritical. Trump has had no issue appointing unqualified people… Tulsi Gabbard, his new pick for national intel director, or his own daughter, with zero qualifications in anything outside of being a trust-fund baby, have been selected to work in the White House but somehow aren't "DEI hires". According to Trump, if a woman or minority gets any job in the US, it's DEIs fault and they’re clearly unqualified — unless of course he picks them, I guess?

What Is DEI Really About?

At face value the pushback against DEI policies is this — "Why are we unfairly giving jobs to less qualified people based on race or gender? Shouldn’t we hire on merit?" I agree, that is a completely valid criticism — and would be a worrying practice, if it were actually the case. What this gross oversimplification ignores are the decades of research showing that hiring has never been purely merit-based.

I can point to any number of studies (and will link to several below) that show that women and minorities are at a severe disadvantage in the hiring market due to implicit biases — or the idea that we all have biases inside ourselves, unconsciously, that direct us to feel or act in a certain way. For example, these biases are so ingrained that if you flash yellow cards in front of a child and black cards in front of a kid and ask them how they feel, yellow will make them feel happy, and black makes them feel bad.¹ They're not consciously choosing that response. The same sort of thing happens inside adults too. One study I quote frequently noted that resumes with a "black sounding name", for instance, caused callback rates on the same resume to drop by 50%.² In another, it took up to 8 years MORE experience for the same job to receive a callback if your name "sounded black" versus "sounded white".³ Is that not clear evidence of non-merit based hiring?

DEI programs, in their purest form, seek to correct this imbalance by helping companies recognize and mitigate bias, expand the pool of qualified candidates they consider, and ensure that opportunities aren’t limited by systemic discrimination. DEI challenges these destructive patterns, not by enforcing quotas, but by encouraging broader outreach and fairer hiring practices.⁶

The Business Case for Diversity

Beyond correcting systemic bias, diverse workforces have been shown to outperform homogenous ones in measurable ways. A 2012 CEB study found that diverse and inclusive teams exhibit 1.12x more discretionary effort, 1.19x greater intent to stay, 1.57x more collaboration, and 1.42x greater team commitment.⁴ Additionally, a 2013 study from Talent Innovation found that employees in diverse organizations were 60% more likely to see their ideas developed, 75% more likely to see their innovations implemented, and 70% more likely to capture a new market — while also being 45% more likely to improve market share.⁵

These are not just abstract social ideals; they translate into tangible business success. Companies that prioritize diversity tend to foster more innovation, retain employees longer, and perform better in competitive markets!

The Real “DEI Hires”

Ironically, many of Trump’s own selections embody what critics claim to be “DEI hires” — individuals chosen for reasons other than qualifications. Take Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host and Trump’s reported pick for Secretary of Defense. His military experience consists of nine years in the Army, where he never rose beyond the rank of Major. He would be replacing Lloyd Austin, a Black four-star general — the highest possible rank attainable — with 41 years of service and nearly every military decoration our country can bestow. If hiring based on identity rather than merit is the problem, then why is Pete even in the running? Who’s the real DEI hire here?

Problems up the funnel

Another common criticism is that DEI policies focus too much on hiring — a “down-funnel” problem — and not enough on fixing the root cause: education. It’s true that fewer Black students enter STEM fields than white students, and this is certainly an issue that needs addressing. But these disparities don’t exist in a vacuum; they’re cyclical. A Black child in a low-income metro area is far less likely to attend a well-funded school, have access to STEM programs, or receive mentorship that could guide them toward high-paying careers. That disadvantage carries over into hiring, which then affects future generations as their children repeat the same cycle.

As Adam Grant argues in Hidden Potential, how far you’ve had to travel is much more important than just where you are — someone who had to work against systemic bias, poor education, and other factors with a 1550 SAT score is actually probably more qualified than a rich white kid who went to the top prep schools, had private tutoring, and expensive SAT prep courses and achieved the exact same score. Many minority candidates have had to overcome more obstacles to reach the same level of qualifications as their peers. DEI programs help ensure they get a fair shot, which can, in turn, break these systemic cycles over time.

Does DEI Ever Go Too Far?

Like any program, DEI can be misapplied and taken advantage of. There will always be cases where a company prioritizes optics over actual change or turns it into a numbers game to check a box. But the reality is that biased, non-merit-based hiring was widespread before DEI, just in a different direction. The goal of DEI isn’t to replace merit — it’s to make sure that merit is actually the determining factor.

At its core, DEI is about creating a level playing field. It ensures that opportunity isn’t limited by race, gender, or background — but by ability and hard work. If we care about hiring the best people, we should want to correct the systems that have historically shut out so many talented individuals.

Addendum: A Different Approach to DEI?

A thought-provoking idea my good friend Dave Grodzki recently shared with me is that we could theoretically achieve the goals of DEI without explicitly framing it around race or gender — avoiding the backlash those discussions often generate — by instead focusing purely on economic status. And honestly, I think that’s a great idea though I haven’t explored it in depth or looked at any data around this approach. At its core, DEI is about correcting imbalances in economic opportunity, and those disparities have historically impacted minorities the most. By shifting the narrative to something like, “Our company must include recruiting efforts from schools where the average household income is below $50K,” we could possibly address systemic inequality while also gaining more buy-in from those who believe DEI, as currently framed, is inherently racist itself.

However, I do still believe that we need to talk about inherent biases, because, given the data discussed above, a purely economic-based approach could still fail to help the communities DEI was originally meant to support. Without actively addressing racial bias in hiring, you might end up with a company full of low-income white male hires while still overlooking equally (or more) qualified women and minority candidates. Economic status is certainly a crucial piece of the puzzle, but it can’t be the only factor if we actually want to create meaningful change.