“DEI hire” — diversity, equity and inclusion — is a new version of an old insult. For the past 50 years, the term “affirmation action hire” hurled the same accusations of ineptitude. Then and now, the goal is to imply that the person is incompetent — even illegitimate — whether they are the vice president of the US, the head of the US Secret Service, a hypothetical airline pilot, a US Supreme Court justice, a mayor or a college president. The criticism is clear: A DEI hire “Didn’t Earn It.”
The usual response is to get defensive, insisting that the person’s credentials are impeccable and downplaying their race or gender.
However, race and gender are not superficial characteristics that can or should be stripped away to prove someone’s merit. And the reality is that, more often than not, such hires do not lower the bar; they raise it. So maybe we should insist that “DEI hire” is a compliment — even if that is not how it is intended.
DEI’s opponents insist that underrepresented or marginalized groups have cheated the hiring process or skipped the line in order to advance, but there is no evidence that is true.
To be clear, the opposite of the diversity is not meritocracy. It is homogeneity. And homogeneity, not diversity, is what tends to lower the bar. Homogeneity allows employers to remain too comfortable with the “status quo” and lets workers succumb to groupthink and other decisionmaking traps.
In homogenous companies, white leaders tend to be evaluated by less-rigorous standards; they are seen more favorably when they succeed and penalized less harshly when they fail. And in organizations with fewer black leaders, black employees tend to have more fairness concerns and be more skeptical about whether their organizations will act honestly and ethically.
In contrast, diversity, equity and inclusion raise the standard for performance. Diversity — whether of race, politics or gender — has been found to enhance group problem-solving and decisionmaking. Racially diverse juries deliberate more thoughtfully. Politically diverse debate teams prepare more diligently. Mixed-gender teams of scientists are more likely to produce breakthroughs. Exposure to people from different backgrounds leads teammates to pause, question their assumptions and explore better ways to proceed. This has a measurable impact on outcomes and has been shown to improve on-the-job learning, innovation and even safety.
Inclusion matters, too. There are decades of studies showing that when employees feel more included, they contribute more of themselves and their ideas. Workers of all backgrounds are more committed to teams and organizations that they believe operate fairly. And when organizations seek to reduce bias in hiring and promotion, it results in a more level playing field for everyone.
And there is yet another reason DEI tends to raise the bar: Leaders from historically underrepresented and excluded backgrounds must jump hurdles of bias. These obstacles get a lot of attention from academics like me, and the evidence on racial and gender bias is robust and consistent. It can also be dispiriting.
However, there is a positive spin to put on it, too: Those who do get ahead often possess extraordinary qualifications.
Is it fair to expect women or people of color to be not only as good as a white man, but better? That is a heavy burden. People like former Xerox chief executive officer Ursula Burns and media mogul Oprah Winfrey represent rare, trailblazing success that many leaders try to emulate, but few replicate. And the pressure to perform better than everyone else contributes to mental and physical health complications, which can undermine performance.
Yet those who succeed can achieve exceptional outcomes. Their presence is expansive, redefining what leadership can look like and broadening the possibilities for everyone. For example, runner Allyson Felix ensured the first on-site childcare facility for athletes at the Paris Olympics. Thasunda Brown Duckett, CEO of TIAA, has advocated for a series of financial reforms that would help the 40 percent of Americans who have not been able to save for retirement. Tennis legends Serena and Venus Williams have fought for pay equity for female players and invested in 85 companies, including 14 unicorns, largely led by underrepresented founders.
So there is nothing wrong with intentionally bringing diversity, equity and inclusion to the table. In fact, it is exactly what is needed.
So when someone accuses me of being a “DEI hire,” I will respond with thanks, knowing that I have “Definitely Earned It.”
Laura Morgan Roberts is a professor at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS