“Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) is withering under the sunlight of public scrutiny. And as the Kentucky General Assembly prepares to address wasteful and discriminatory DEI programs in public universities, DEI advocates turn to the specious argument that DEI improves economic outcomes.
DEI is on the defensive because Kentuckians are realizing that the agenda cloaks its radical aims in feel-good buzzwords.
The ideology behind DEI teaches that American society is a rigged system in which the “oppressors”—white people and/or men—use law, culture, and institutions to subjugate the “oppressed”—“minoritized” persons and/or women.
The only way to fix this fundamentally unjust system, according to DEI advocates, is to discriminate against the “oppressors” to topple them from the summit of the social hierarchy.
DEI thus rejects the deeply American principle that people should be judged on their character and merit, not on their race or sex.
Despite claiming to promote “inclusion,” DEI does the opposite, cultivating hatred and suspicion between people from different backgrounds. Consider the University of Michigan, which spent over a quarter of a billion dollars on DEI since 2016. Michigan’s own studies indicated that students found the campus climate less positive than before the implementation of the DEI program. Students reported interacting less with people of different races and religions.
Following these disastrous results of the DEI crusade, its defenders are trying a different tack: claiming that DEI is necessary for economic growth.
In a recent article for the Herald-Leader, Professor Ken Miller cited studies by McKinsey that purportedly showed that businesses with more diverse teams are more profitable than less diverse ones.
But there is good reason to doubt this claim.
Academic researchers have tried to replicate McKinsey’s studies, without success. Accounting professors John Hand and Jeremiah Green found that, when examining the companies in the S&P 500, there was no relationship between the racial or ethnic diversity of a company and its profitability.
Fund managers attempted to cash in on the supposed diversity advantage identified by McKinsey, again without success. Several financial companies created funds that held the stocks of companies with large amounts of racial and gender diversity. These funds have consistently underperformed the broader market.
Let’s be clear: companies should hire the most qualified applicants regardless of race, gender, or other identity categories. Homogenous companies don’t necessarily outperform diverse ones. But greater diversity doesn’t automatically lead to greater returns.
Professor Miller writes that “a diverse workforce brings a multitude of perspectives, making organizations more adaptable to changing markets.” If—if—DEI initiatives actually promoted the diversity of thought that Professor Miller champions, no one would object to them.
But as actually practiced, DEI focuses incessantly on the supposed oppression of groups defined by race, ethnicity, and gender. In many cases, individuals who conduct DEI trainings tell their captive audience that showing up to work on time, having a sense of urgency, and writing in standard English are manifestations of “white supremacy.”
While acknowledging that DEI initiatives can be divisive, Professor Miller insists that DEI shouldn’t be ended. He writes, “When DEI initiatives are implemented thoughtfully—emphasizing fairness, transparency, and meritocracy—they can enhance morale and build stronger, more cohesive teams.” But DEI doesn’t do any of these things. DEI practitioners, in fact, claim that the belief in meritocracy is a myth that enables the continued oppression of certain groups. Professor Miller is defending a conception of DEI that doesn’t exist.
Professor Miller doesn’t want to “throw the baby out with the bath water” when it comes to DEI. But what “baby” would we be saving, exactly? DEI doesn’t promote cohesiveness, a sense of belonging, or a belief in one’s efficacy.
DEI promotes hatred and division, not because we’re doing it wrong, but because hatred and division are the logical consequences of this poisonous ideology.
DEI has no place in the classroom, the boardroom, or in any part of American public life.
Timothy K. Minella is a Senior Fellow at the Goldwater Institute. He previously served as a faculty member at the University of Kentucky.
This op-ed first appeared at the Lexington Herald-Leader.
