The diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) movement represents a political ideology that employs linguistic manipulation and deception. This article contrasts the historical meanings of each term—diversity, equity, inclusion—with the neo-Marxist implications in DEI.
The roots of the DEI movement can be traced back to the 1960s and 1970s when it began as a noble effort to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in society. Initially, these terms were understood in their traditional sense, reflecting ideas of variation within a population, fairness, and the ability of individuals to join groups based on established rules. However, over the years, a normative spin has been placed on these words, creating a façade that makes embracing DEI appear morally right.
Diversity, historically referred to as variation within a population, has been repurposed to describe preferred demographic groups. The idea that an all-black gathering can be considered diverse, while an all-white gathering may not be, contradicts the term’s original meaning. Furthermore, diversity is sometimes used to label an individual solely based on their demographic background, further distorting its meaning.
Equity, the second term in DEI, is the most problematic of the three. Etymologically linked to fairness, equity was traditionally associated with positive values. However, the concept of fairness can be ambiguous and challenging to define. Which interpretation of fairness does DEI ascribe to? Is it based on meritocracy alone or a combination of merit, compassion, and empathy? Alternatively, does it imply absolute equality of outcomes? These questions remain unanswered, leaving the concept of equity open to manipulation and subjective interpretation.
Inclusion has also undergone a transformation. Originally, inclusion meant that anyone could join a group based on established rules. However, it now suggests that proportional representation must be achieved, even if it requires altering or compromising the conventional standards for membership. While the intention behind inclusion may appear to be noble, it is crucial to recognize that including one individual in a group typically means excluding another who otherwise would have been included. This proportional representation requirement contradicts the principle of fairness and can lead to unintended consequences.
When these three terms—diversity, equity, and inclusion—are merged to shape policies related to employment or institutional conduct, they acquire a significance that surpasses their individual meanings. Together, they reveal an ideological agenda that seeks to redistribute resources, wealth, and power through an administered political economy based on group categories. Categorizing people for ideological purposes is dehumanizing and undermines individuality.
R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr., Secretary of Morehouse College and executive director of the American Institute for Managing Diversity, Inc., emphasized the limitations of affirmative action and diversity in the workplace. He noted that affirmative action often conflicts with the meritocracy we value and creates a stigma for those who feel unfairly passed over and for those who are perceived as its beneficiaries. Upholding standards based on competence and character, untethered to accidents of birth, is crucial for genuine upward mobility.
The United States Constitution ensures equal opportunity for all individuals, empowering each person to make choices based on the opportunities presented in this great nation. However, the pursuit of equal outcomes, an unattainable utopian ideal, cannot be guaranteed.
To conclude, the DEI movement is a neo-Marxist political ideology that employs linguistic manipulation and deception. The redefinition of the terms diversity, equity, and inclusion has shifted their meanings, often to give favor to certain preferred groups. The push for equal outcomes disregards the inherent differences among individuals and the importance of merit and character in determining success. DEI’s demand for conformity to an ideologically driven agenda ultimately harms the very individuals it seeks to help and undermines the cohesion of our society. It is important to critically examine the underlying motives and consequences of the DEI movement to ensure that we foster genuine equality and opportunities for all without sacrificing individuality and fairness in the process.