In partnership with

You Belong Here

Stretch

Over the past several years, DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives and programs have come under increasing scrutiny from anti-DEI activists like Robby Starbuck, whom I’ve discussed in a previous You Belong Here newsletter. Activists like Starbuck argue that politics have become overly intertwined with business, leading to hiring decisions that prioritize identity over qualifications. They claim that this approach has given individuals from underrepresented groups an unfair advantage.

In a legal context, recent setbacks for DEI efforts have only strengthened these claims. In 2023, the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action, which aimed to create a fairer college admissions process. This decision fueled anti-DEI advocates like Starbuck, who champion what they call “meritocracy, excellence, and intelligence” (MEI).

Alexandr Wang, the CEO of AI company Scale, coined the phrase MEI when he announced in June 2024 that his business would only hire people who met certain criteria for merit, excellence, and intelligence. Wang declared that hiring decisions would be based solely on these criteria, with no consideration for demographic factors. Proponents of MEI believe that selecting candidates based purely on merit will naturally result in diversity. Since its introduction, the MEI concept has gained momentum among anti-DEI supporters.

However, a major concern with MEI is the subjectivity of its criteria. Who determines what constitutes merit? Who judges whether someone demonstrates excellence or intelligence? These assessments are often based on a particular person or groups cultural norms, personal values, and the false assumption that systems are equitable.

In reality, the people making these decisions typically come from a narrow segment of society, meaning their values, norms, and biases shape who gets hired. This presents a disadvantage for people from underrepresented groups, who bring unique value through their lived experiences, diverse perspectives, leadership styles, and cultural backgrounds.

Additionally, MEI not only perpetuates unconscious biases but also limits the talent pool—disproportionately affecting people from underrepresented backgrounds. These individuals have just as much merit, excellence, and intelligence, but they often lack equal access to opportunities. DEI aims to address these inequities.

Lastly, MEI overlooks a key principle of DEI: creating space for different people, values, perspectives, ideas, and leadership styles in organizations. Research consistently shows that diversity, particularly in decision-making roles, leads to positive outcomes for companies. MEI, on the other hand, creates an environment where bias and discrimination can thrive.

So what can be done as MEI gains traction? Companies must recognize that MEI threatens to undo the progress achieved through DEI efforts. Organizational leaders must understand that investing in DEI doesn’t come at the expense of excellence. This is not a zero-sum game—brilliant, exceptional, and intelligent individuals exist in underrepresented groups as well. DEI simply seeks to expand the definition of meritocracy, excellence, and intelligence.

Organizations that fail to grasp this distinction are ultimately playing a shortsighted game—one that risks undermining their long-term success.

Reflect

1. What are the potential risks of focusing solely on "merit, excellence, and intelligence" (MEI) as defined by a small group of decision-makers? How might this approach unintentionally exclude diverse talent?

2. What might be the long-term consequences for organizations that adopt MEI and ignore DEI? How might their talent pool, innovation, and overall success be affected?

3. The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down affirmative action is cited as a setback for DEI efforts. How can organizations continue to promote diversity and equity in the face of legal and societal challenges?

Act

1. Challenge Subjectivity in Hiring Criteria: Advocate for transparent and objective hiring and promotion criteria that go beyond traditional measures of "merit, excellence, and intelligence." Push for processes that include diverse perspectives in decision-making and minimize personal bias.

2. Learn About Unconscious Bias: Participate in training programs that focus on identifying and reducing unconscious bias in hiring, promotions, and everyday interactions within the workplace.

3. Review and Revise Organizational Practices: Encourage your organization to regularly review its hiring and promotion policies to ensure they don’t unintentionally favor certain demographics. Implement systems that promote equitable access to opportunities for all groups.

Ready to join our Community Leaders?

Receive Honest News Today

Join over 4 million Americans who start their day with 1440 – your daily digest for unbiased, fact-centric news. From politics to sports, we cover it all by analyzing over 100 sources. Our concise, 5-minute read lands in your inbox each morning at no cost. Experience news without the noise; let 1440 help you make up your own mind. Sign up now and invite your friends and family to be part of the informed.

Sign up today!