Meritocracy vs DEI

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a recently controversial concept in the West. While it is presented as a crucial progression of social justice, it has hidden, indeed problematic, dimensions that have far-reaching impacts on society. Most people talk about the positive aspects of DEI while avoiding a critical assessment, and it has become taboo to public debate so as not to offend anyone.

The Trump administration has strongly opposed DEI, aiming to dismantle it in government agencies and other institutions. In contrast to it, many other Western countries are still actively pursuing DEI, reflecting the diverse perspectives on this issue.

Australia is not exceptional. The educational, medical, and aviation sectors have recently expressed their vow to continue implementing DEI policies. This prompts questions as to why these key, safety-centric, and complex industries requiring more human expertise, sound experience, and deep knowledge engage in this social experiment. What drives DEI to be valued as an ideological necessity in such vital fields? Why has the emphasis on meritocracy diminished?

Meritocracy is a social structure where individuals are motivated, advanced, and chosen based on their proven abilities, efforts, and skills rather than their social status, political beliefs, religious affiliations, wealth, or personal connections. It is rooted in the principle of fairness as a cornerstone of democracy, aiming to create equal opportunities for all to thrive and enable individuals to ascend to higher levels of power, position, and influence. It is a fundamental motivator within capitalism -- hard work, extensive knowledge and intelligence are rewarded. The more effort one invests, the greater the rewards.

Meritocracy facilitates social mobility for talented and ambiguous individuals and helps, where possible, bridge class divides. However, it also has its setbacks -- it exasperates social inequalities by incentivising and rewarding the talented and skilled while neglecting the untalented and unskilled. It also conceals the hidden network of influence and power, preserving privilege and favouritism. Furthermore, it holds individuals accountable for their poor choices rather than society as a whole for their life circumstances.

To combat social inequalities, democratic governments have implemented welfare programs, funds, and allowances assisting marginalised and disadvantaged people. These approaches are, in essence, a band-aid solution without resolving the core of the problem. A better approach would focus on the capitalist system itself, particularly its tendency to allow infinite capital accumulation with the outcome of the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and its resultant perpetuation of social inequalities.

In such an environment, DEI has been promoted as a proposed remedy for Western societies' challenges: meritocracy is the problem but not the solution. DEI is a framework promoting fair treatment and full participation of all people from all walks of life. Diversity means the coexistence of differences in specific settings, including race, gender, age, religion, and others. Equity is a way to ensure fair treatment and opportunities, actively working to dismantle barriers preventing equal outcomes. Inclusion fosters a welcoming environment where everyone feels accepted, respected, supported, and valued.

While the goals of DEI are positive, if it is pushed further for ulterior or ideological motives, it could lead to undesired and disastrous outcomes.

First, the concept of diversity highlights the presence of varied individuals, values, practices, beliefs and perspectives devoid of any commonality uniting them. Without unity, any diversity risks falling apart. By unity, I mean a shared set of values or principles that can bring together diverse groups and foster a sense of belonging and understanding.

Next, we turn to equity. Whilst appearing as a noble evolution of equality, it carries a more sinister undertone. Equality aims to provide everyone with the same opportunities to fulfil their goals in life, whereas equity guarantees equal outcomes by ensuring fair treatment and access to all. However, this approach starkly contrasts meritocracy, rewarding mediocrity and diminishing the value of talent and hard work. In such a system, a gifted individual finds themselves on par with someone lacking ability, motivation and skills. It leads to a scenario where talented and untalented are treated equally and are expected to achieve the same outcomes. Promotions potentially favour individuals from historically marginalised backgrounds, not based on their capabilities but rather on their past injustices. As time progresses, the disheartened, talented individuals feel unmotivated as their efforts go unrewarded and resent such an unfair system. As their resentment deepens, they may stop any efforts to progress or make changes. In such a case, efficiency is diminished rapidly and terribly, posing a serious threat to productivity.

Finally, we have inclusion, claiming to embrace everyone -- regardless of merit, character, background, or anything else. There are no rules for inclusion; if it includes all, it includes none. It eradicates the need for a baseline set of standards by which a group is held, and concessions must be made to accommodate the specific needs of every individual within the group.

In summary, DEI represents diversity without strong unity, equity without true fairness, and inclusion without any meaningful criteria for participation. Despite seemingly positive intentions, the long-term effects of DEI inflict more harm than good on society across three levels.

At an individual level, DEI could lead to a loss of motivation to work hard, excel in a specific professional area and seek more rewards to expand personal aspirational horizons. When unskilled and skilled individuals are equally rewarded, it could be perceived as a disservice to those who have honed their skills through extra hard work. Similarly, recognising those who do not or have no similar capacity to contribute equal effort may feel like a penalty for those who are dedicated and industrious. This loss of motivation could lead to declining individual achievement and ambition.

At the community level, DEI promotes a tapestry of cultural, ethnic, religious, and racial diversity. However, if DEI is implemented aggressively, this diversity could lead to social fragmentation, threatening the bonds of social cohesion. Distrust can fester among different groups, eroding the sense of unity and shared purpose. Each community becomes autonomous, and no community wants to be dictated by other communities.

This tendency further weakens the sense of national identity, as there is no overarching ideology or political force to unite all communities. Instead, the focus shifts loyalties and allegiance to original and transnational sentiments and identity. Consequently, larger communities seek to reclaim their original ethnic identities to respond to the diminishing sense of localised national unity.

While presenting an illusion of equal outcomes at the national level, the quality of services decreases significantly, and an alarming decline in the effectiveness of social institutions diminishing productivity will become the new norm. We will see more medical and aviation incidents, further decreasing public trust in these institutions.

The ideology of DEI has become so entrenched that it has created a new class of activists, beneficiaries and defenders against anybody who can question it, like me. This new group becomes more emboldened, organised and finally dictatorial quite soon in deciding how far society can be diversified or unified, how equity will be applied equally or favourably, and who is included or excluded.

Ultimately, DEI threatens to undermine the very essence of capitalism-not by fostering improvement but by dismantling existing structures. It risks steering society toward a model reminiscent of socialism, even though no socialist regime fully embodies the principles of DEI. We may even find ourselves in a bizarre situation – a half-socialist system where the state becomes absolute and a half-feudal system where individuals, despite their intelligence and skills, are reduced to the status of slaves for powerful elites, expected to toil without recognition or reward.