DEI & "Merit"

DEI vs “Merit

The debate between Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and merit is often framed as a conflict, but the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

While merit emphasizes individual achievement and capability, DEI focuses on ensuring fair opportunities and addressing historical and systemic barriers that may prevent certain groups from fully participating in society.

Merit:

• Definition: Merit is often defined as a system of evaluation based on skills, intelligence, effort, and achievements.

• Assumption: It assumes that everyone starts from the same place and that opportunities are distributed fairly.

• Limitations: In practice, systems based purely on merit can ignore historical inequalities, discrimination, and privilege, meaning that some groups face more barriers to achieving success than others.

  
  

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI):

• Diversity refers to representation—ensuring different groups, including those historically marginalized, are included in workplaces, education, and decision-making spaces.

• Equity addresses systemic inequalities—ensuring that people have fair access to opportunities and resources, not just equal treatment.

• Inclusion ensures that once diverse individuals are in a space, they are respected, valued, and given a voice, preventing tokenism.

The concept of merit is often framed as an objective measure of ability, skill, or achievement, typically used in hiring, education, and public opportunities. However, when compared to the 14th Amendment and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, it becomes clear that "merit" as commonly used is often not neutral and can conflict with the legal principles of equal protection and accommodations for marginalized groups. Below is an analysis of why "merit" is distinct from the legal frameworks established by these landmark civil rights protections.

1.    The 14th Amendment: Equal Protection vs. Merit-Based Systems

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, guarantees equal protection under the law and prohibits states from denying any person "the equal protection of the laws." It was designed to ensure that historically marginalized groups—particularly African Americans after the Civil War—were granted full citizenship rights and legal equality.

How "Merit" Can Undermine the 14th Amendment’s Principles

Merit is often based on unequal starting conditions – In theory, merit-based selection assumes that all individuals begin at the same starting point, but systemic barriers (such as segregation, economic disparity, and historical discrimination) mean that marginalized groups often face structural disadvantages.

The 14th Amendment recognizes the need for intervention – Courts have upheld affirmative action and anti-discrimination measures under the 14th Amendment, recognizing that purely "merit-based" systems can reinforce existing inequalities rather than correct them.

Historical context: Merit was used to exclude – During the Jim Crow era and beyond, "merit" was often weaponized to maintain racial and gender hierarchies. Poll taxes and literacy tests were framed as meritocratic but were, in reality, tools to disenfranchise Black Americans.

The Supreme Court has acknowledged that formal equality (treating everyone the same) is not true equality when historical and social disadvantages are ignored. In cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court struck down "separate but equal" policies precisely because they failed to address systemic discrimination, reinforcing the idea that merit without context is insufficient.

2.  The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Accommodation vs. Meritocracy

The ADA of 1990 was designed to protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination in employment, public accommodations, transportation, and government services. It requires reasonable accommodations to be made so that individuals with disabilities can participate fully in society.

How the ADA Conflicts with a Purely "Merit-Based" System

Merit is often based on abled-body norms – Many traditional assessments of merit (such as standardized tests, physical exams, or rigid productivity metrics) inherently favor those without disabilities.

The ADA mandates accommodations – The law requires that employers and institutions modify work environments, testing conditions, and public spaces so that merit can be assessed fairly, rather than if everyone must meet the same criteria without modification.

The law prioritizes access over competition – While merit-based systems emphasize competition and ranking, the ADA is grounded in the principle that access and inclusion are more important than an inflexible hierarchy of ability.

Example: Employment and Workplace Meritocracy

A purely "merit-based" hiring process might require all employees to perform a job in the same way, such as standing for long hours or taking a written test under time constraints.

Under the ADA, an employer is required to provide accommodations—such as a seated workstation or extra time on an exam—so that a person with a disability is not penalized for factors unrelated to their actual ability to perform the job.

Without these accommodations, what is considered "merit" is actually just unexamined privilege that favors able-bodied individuals.

3. Merit Without Equity Reinforces Inequality

Both the 14th Amendment and the ADA of 1990 recognize that "merit" alone is not a sufficient standard for fairnessbecause it does not account for systemic inequality, discrimination, or the need for accommodations.

The 14th Amendment ensures equal protection and recognizes that past and present discrimination necessitate corrective measures like affirmative action.

The ADA ensures that ability is not measured in ways that inherently exclude people with disabilities, requiring reasonable modifications to level the playing field.

"Merit" is only fair when it is evaluated in a system that acknowledges and corrects for historical and structural disadvantages. Without those legal protections, merit-based criteria often serve as a barrier rather than a true measure of ability.

4. The False Narrative: "DEI Lowers Standards"

One common criticism is that DEI initiatives lower merit-based standards. This is a misconception because:

• DEI does not mean hiring or admitting unqualified people; it means broadening the definition of merit to recognize talent and potential that traditional systems may overlook.

• Studies have shown that diverse teams outperform homogenous ones in innovation, problem-solving, and financial success.

• Companies and universities with strong DEI policies often set higher standards for leadership, collaboration, and adaptability—skills that go beyond traditional metrics of merit.

Real-World Examples:

1.    The Military & DEI – The U.S. military actively promotes diversity and inclusion because it recognizes that varied perspectives strengthen decision-making and adaptability in high-stakes situations.

2.   Corporate Success & DEI – McKinsey’s research shows that companies with diverse leadership teams perform better financially than those that are homogenous.

3.   STEM Fields & DEI – Historically, women and minorities were excluded from science and technology fields due to systemic bias, not a lack of talent. Today, DEI efforts have expanded access to these fields without sacrificing scientific innovation.

5. Merit Alone Cannot Address Systemic Barriers

A purely merit-based approach assumes that success is based only on ability and effort. However, historical and social barriers mean that people do not start at the same place.

Consider the following barriers to success:

• Educational Inequality – Public schools in low-income areas receive fewer resources, affecting college readiness.

• Economic Disparities – Wealthier individuals can afford internships, networking opportunities, and advanced degrees that boost their resumes.

• Bias in Hiring & Promotions – Studies show that identical resumes with non-white-sounding names receive fewer callbacks than those with white-sounding names.

• Disability & Accessibility – Many work environments are not designed for people with disabilities, even if they are equally (or more) qualified.

DEI policies acknowledge these barriers and aim to level the playing field, not give unfair advantages.

Merit is important, but it must be evaluated within a system that recognizes and corrects for disparities.

• DEI does not eliminate merit—it expands it.

• Without DEI, a "merit-based" system can reinforce existing inequalities.

• True meritocracy only exists when all people have an equal chance to succeed, and that requires addressing systemic barriers.

By integrating DEI principles, we ensure that merit is about talent and potential, not privilege and access.

 6. Creating Division

Merit is being weaponized instead of DEI within the fascist agenda as a tool to justify exclusion, reinforce hierarchy, and create division under the guise of fairness. By promoting "merit" as an absolute standard while ignoring systemic barriers, these movements frame DEI as an attack on tradition and stability, portraying efforts to address inequality as unfair advantages for marginalized groups. This tactic mirrors historical fascist strategies, where appeals to "order," "purity," and "national identity" were used to justify discrimination, scapegoating, and the suppression of diversity. By rejecting DEI, these movements uphold a false narrative of superiority, presenting their ideology as morally and culturally dominant while marginalizing those who do not conform, thereby deepening social divisions and legitimizing exclusionary policies.

What can you do?

You are welcome to borrow this document, write your own letter to your representatives. Spread education and be involved with sending letters, phone calls etc.