DEI Critique (1)

The world would be less beautiful if we all looked the same, and we should respect and appreciate physical differences, like racial distinctions. Of course, we shouldn’t disrespect or devalue others due to outward appearances because we have a duty to respect the divine spark within us. However, a world in which the physical is valued more than the mental or moral is neither beautiful nor respectable -- it depreciates the human person. We humans have souls and personalities that transcend our physical features, and it is unjust and unwise to employ and empower and elevate people based on how they look. Indeed, our physical (racial) profile is neither the most important aspect of our being nor related to whether we can solve a problem or create something good, which is precisely why people shouldn't be hired or promoted based on the color of their skin. DEI, however, while presenting itself as a vehicle for fair treatment and human flourishing (perhaps that's what it means to do), makes race a criterion for employment, which undermines the very things we should value the most (2). Therefore, DEI, insofar as it encourages and enforces employers to hire and promote people based on their racial profile, is neither good for society nor fair to the human person (3). It is pragmatically, philosophically, and ethically unsatisfying.

Quality 

We should care about the quality of a creation and solution, and only if we are being dishonest or unreasonably difficult will we not admit that we wish for the quality of the things we buy and use, and our experiences, to improve.

But what improves the quality of anything? The one who knows how to and wants to improve quality (with integrity), of course. Indeed, whoever has the most knowledge and skill and an uncompromising intention to be focused, honest, and helpful is the only one who can improve the quality of things -- things we use and care about. Therefore, the quality of the economy from which we buy products, services, and experiences will continually improve if-and-only-if employment is based upon who is most capable, who is most willing, and who will do what is right.

However, if employers don't hire and promote the people who are best able to improve the quality of our solutions and services, which is inevitable if hiring decisions are determined partially by demographics and not solely on attitude, aptitude, and rectitude, the quality of our solutions and services will surely suffer and never reach their potential.

Exceptional  

The qualities that make us exceptional – great -- have nothing to do with the pigmentation of our skin or sexual orientation. All animals have color and sex, but only humans can understand and speak about their world, tell the truth, and create companies and cultivate character.

Jobs should exist for the sake of bettering the community and society, and they must be given to those who can and will do those jobs the best, in order for the respect and responsibility of the human person to remain and rise as is right. Whatever our role in society or the economy is, we have a chance to be who we were made to be if we think, speak, and choose wisely, but our chances of reaching our potential decline with the decline of our intellect, skill set, and integrity. Humans are made to be curious, learn, and do beautiful and good things, and economic and societal power and responsibility should be proportionate with understanding, ability, and goodwill. If we elevate and emphasize (rather than erode) the expression of human exceptionalism, we appropriately value that which makes us great.

But once we prioritize race or sex above our (1) understanding of the truth (2) allegiance to the good, and (3) and abilities, by tying economic advancement somewhat to the former and not solely to the latter, we have disrespected the exceptional qualities with which God has endowed us. While each person’s societal position should rise and expand due to performance, competence, and potential, we have chosen the lesser part of man to determine man’s role and responsibility in society.

These exceptional qualities have been given to us so that we might have a higher life, in seeing and reflecting more of God's face than non-rational and non-moral creatures are able to; and these qualities, and what we do with them, should solely determine who does what in society, for a living. “For whatever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance … (Matt. 13:12a). If the goal of human work is to elevate and illuminate humanity -- to optimize and properly utilize the "human engine" -- for the benefit of the individual and community, we must give it the exceptional fuel it requires, which is unique to humanity, but found in every human.

Excellence 

As we choose to use our mind to understand what is true and give our heart to maximize our God given qualities of reason and character, we enter into human excellence -- we become more capable of being a part of the solution, of solving problems. Contrarily, the less we know and the more we reject the excellence of perseverance, honesty, goodwill, and undeterred focus, the less excellent we become -- the more problematic we become to our own happiness and the wellbeing of others. Why would we ever hire, promote, and reward based off anything other than excellence, when excellence is the effect of making good decisions, and good decisions produce a happy and thriving society? How could we disrespect excellence by preferring less than what we could have of it?

If we (must not) undermine the exceptional attributes God gave us by hiring people based on impersonal and non-rational factors, we (must not) undermine the excellence they can achieve by rewarding and promoting people for anything other than excellence. We must respect the human nature (our formal cause) and its ultimate end (our final cause), and what makes us exceptional will make us excellent. 

Standard 

By giving companies racial quotas and not the freedom to pick the best person for the job (regardless of race), DEI also pressures companies to lower the standard for getting a job done -- a standard set to ensure the person with the most merit and ability to do the job gets the job. If the only candidate(s) who meet a company's objective standards are a part of a majority demographical group, and this company must have a minority in this role to meet a DEI quota, it must part ways with DEI or its standard of common sense and uncommon success. Employers’ standard of merit, abilities, and willingness is what qualifies them to qualify whether others are fit for the job, but there goes any reason why their employees should trust them when they (employers) get rid of their reason to be trusted.

This standard slaying stance also disincentivizes the "favored" from improving their intellectual capital and capabilities, from reaching the standard they were made to reach. Indeed, far from making others better, the "favor" of DEI does not maximize but stifles understanding and potential. For those who have the boost of DEI will no longer need to push as high and hard as possible to have honorable prestige, and therefore, will be less likely to reach great intellectual and moral and creative heights, than if they were held to the same sensible standards as everyone else.

Suspicious of Incompetence  

When those in a minority group have a lower standard to qualify for a position than other those in other groups, or when those in a minority group can get a job when they aren't qualified or less qualified than other groups, many will question whether those in a minority group are really qualified for the positions they have or if they have those positions due to something like nepotism. In other words, those who stand to benefit from DEI may get a job, but then perhaps they "Didn't Earn It".   

Who wants to be suspected of not deserving the job one has, especially if one has truly earned what one has? Many people in minority groups reach the objective standards that majority (unfavored) groups must reach to be employed, and it would be a shame if those who deserve the position that they currently have, were suspected by others of getting a handout. And yet, that is the natural consequence of lowering the standard for certain ethnic or cultural groups. 

I can't embrace a way that necessitates an ethic or cultural group to appear suspect of incompetence when many in that group are well suited to generate the best economic and societal solutions.

Dignity and Duty (5)

I believe those who promote DEI for the sake of human equality confuse a fundamental difference between (1) the innate dignity of the human person and (2) the societal duties (jobs) that should be based off of merit. In short, all men are created equal but not all men deserve equal reward or responsibility.

All American citizens are born with rights, not earned by merit, but given by God and protected by law (4). And in the American republic, people have dignity and rights not because of their high display of character, but because they are citizens in a country founded by people who believed in and respected the immeasurable value God places in those made in his image.

But when it comes to corporate or countrywide responsibility (duties) -- when it comes to what we should encourage and reward within people -- merit is the name of the aim (this isn't a game). Meritocracy is the right form of governance. Church leaders must have good character and a good reputation, or else churches turn into cults. Business leaders must know their business and be prudent and disciplined, or else business becomes a bust. Politicians must know the principles of government and the needs of the people, or else people lose their rights.

People are dignified, so we ought not insult them if they're over their head or under achievers. But the same moral law that says not to insult also says not to mistreat by misleading. We must not insult people for being too high or low, but we also must not encourage them to carry more than they can bear or do less than they are capable.

In short, when it comes to individual rights, a good democratic republic recognizes (in practice, not just in theory) that God has made all men dignified, and when it comes to personal responsibility (duties), a fair society is a meritocracy -- where people know they ought to be, try to be, and encourage others to be dignified. But when equal rewards and responsibility are given to people of unequal merit and character -- when those in power force equal outcomes -- equal and fair and impartial treatment is not being practiced.

Final Thoughts: Progress versus Discrimination 

Huge strides toward human equality have been made in America over the past couple centuries, and of course, there is always more work to be done. It's important to remember, however, what catalyzed and realized this progress, and why it was necessary in the first place, so that we can keep moving forward and don't go backwards.

Progress towards human equality has always been the result of recognizing something inherently valuable within every human person that supersedes our sexual, racial, and physical differences. Contrarily, the very essence of discrimination is viewing and treating people differently based on these demographical differences, and discrimination is the very reason why there was, and still is, a need to progress towards human equality. Even those who push for DEI try to justify their cause by the concern or perception that certain demographics are favored ("privileged") over others. And we don't reverse discrimination with reverse discrimination. We can't fight fire with fire but must put it out with water. We “overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:21).

Therefore, if we want to continue eliminating unfair treatment, wherever it still exists, we must lose the obsession with our demographical (racial) differences and emphasize what truly makes the human race great, which is inherent within each and every human. Only then, will our world (organically) become more diverse, equitable, and inclusive, while remaining beautiful, fair, and just.

Footnotes and References

1. This is not a comprehensive critique of every aspect of DEI but focuses specifically on the preferential treatment that arises from it.

2. FAA Lawsuit - New York Post; IBM Lawsuit - Reuters; Starbucks Sued - Reuters; Paramount, CBS Lawsuit - New York Post; Washington Examiner - United Airlines Pushing for Gender and Racial Quotas 

3. While this critique focuses on the reality of racial preferences under the banner of DEI, one could also criticize preference shown due to other demographics, like sex (biology or orientation) or age, excluding instances where sex or age actually affect one’s ability to do a job – For example, a clothing brand might need a woman to model their female clothes or the military may have an open position that requires the physical fitness of someone under eighty years old.  

4. Of course, these natural rights are only retained and preserved with merit, for active criminals will destroy civilization if they can vote for cops or laws.

5. I’m not speaking about moral duties (which are virtually the same for everyone) but societal duties or economic jobs (which vary person to person).