‘Assault on Diversity, Equality and Inclusion’
While the merits (or demerits) of the firing of an African American army commander and a lawyer in America’s armed forces are not clearly known, on the face it these are in the nature of an ‘assault’ on ‘Diversity, Equity and Inclusion’ (DEI) initiatives by the Trump administration.
Broadly speaking, this ‘assault’ on DEI may not be a bad idea at all. Why? A brief detour on the nature of DEI is warranted here. In theory and in principle, DEI is an excellent initiative.
In every society, there are disadvantaged groups and peoples, who suffer from discrimination, prejudice and exclusion that may or may not have historical structural bases. (African Americans and immigrants in western societies constitute a case in point here).
Who can even quibble with the assertion that some degree of ‘push’ or ‘affirmative action’ to remedy these gross injustices is necessary? This is the theory. What is the practice?
‘Benefitting the Elite’
The practice, in the main and by and large, appears to be that it is actually the elite within the subcultures and disadvantaged groups that benefit from these initiatives. How? Because it is this elite that, one, has access to resources - informational, educational and actual - that allows them access to DEI programs and largess.
I have personal experience to validate and reinforce this point. In my quest to broaden and expand the base of my for-profit social enterprise, I went to a remote region of Ladakh (known as a mountainous desert).
The region, in Suru valley of District Kargil, called Khawous, is almost entirely cut off from even Ladakh because of extremely harsh weather. Here in Khawous, I interacted and engaged (unfortunately not for a long period because of unavoidable structural reasons) with the extremely talented women of this region.
They were so gifted with their hands and so determined to work those whatever designs (modern and chic) I gave them, they knitted Pashmina and lamb wool into amazing sweaters, cardigans, pullovers, hats and socks.
The determination of these amazing and gritty women overwhelmed me. These were very poor and marginalized women who, however, had aged very quickly.
Who could benefit from DEI?
Poverty, hardships of life, exposure to the elements and harsh weather, with no amenities and public goods infrastructure in the region, the brave women of Khawous fell victim to the vicissitudes of life, leaving them strained and drained in the process.
If ANYONE, it is disadvantaged groups like the women of Khawous that are and should be the actual and real beneficiaries of DEI (admission and scholarships in universities across the world?). But, nay, they are not, and they will now. Why?
Because they do not even have the basic resources to even know about DEI. And they are trapped in intergenerational poverty traps that survival is the name of the game for them. However, given that DEI was a reality, say in many western university systems, there were people who benefited.
Who were these people?
DEI undercuts eritocracy
The elite, say someone with informational, educational resources (a university degree from Kashmir or Delhi university) and a burning ambition to make it. In this sense, and from this perspective, DEI ended up subsidizing the elite in the third world.
This is a more or less philosophical and moral critique of the DEI with respect the third world. Is there a combination of this and a utilitarian critique of the same?
Yes. This lies in the fact that DEI actually undercuts meritocracy. The United States Higher Education system serves as an eloquent illustrative example here.
An American student can only get into university after incurring huge debts. While these debts can be repaid over give and take years here and there over a ‘reasonable’ life span, then are mortgages, bills and other necessary life expenses to incur and pay.
Relative terms of ‘good life’
An American with a bachelor’s and master’s degree might have a couple of SUVs, a nice house in the country’s suburbia, but his or her endeavours go into merely paying the bills for these - not the ‘good’ life: higher order thinking, leisure and a stress-free life (in relative terms). This is the broad argument.
The nub is that paying off these huge student loans excludes a vast majority of Americans from the ‘education market’ and a white-collar labor market. Can, if one may ask, a steelworker, or a coalminer’s son or daughter realistically aspire to become a doctor, an AI specialist or a Wall Street banker in the US? Ironically, this underclass of peoples in the US, was called the ‘deplorables’ by the elite educated Americans in the 2016 elections.
Of course, the ‘deplorables’ wore this despicable and pejorative label with pride, and it could be said that Mr. Trump’s victory was the revenge of the ‘deplorables’. Obiter dictum, if higher education - whether technical or humanities or scientific and so on - induces hubris, pride and derision for the less fortunate, what kind of education is that?
Into this melee, enter DEI. A person of color, or ‘difference’, and so on is accorded a privilege purely because of subjective characteristics at the expense of the native - who is both backloaded and frontloaded with structural and other issues that he or she can only think of flipping hamburgers at McDonalds, or load widgets at a factory whose future location is uncertain?
Equality of opportunity for all
How is this meritocracy and how does this constitute fairness? This is not to say that persons of color, immigrants, ‘different’ people are not discriminated against and are not subject to exclusion. They are. But DEI is not the answer to these issues.
What then would constitute an optimal solution? The answer is not rocketing science. It lies in creating equality of opportunity for all. Let other things and themes determine outcomes.
For America, this means devoting considerable investment to primary, secondary and tertiary education – as one starting point.
DEI then, while in principle and theory a noble ideal is not the answer. Elon Musk’s tearing into it is an initiative worth pursuing. It may even constitute Schumpeterian creative destruction.
But to ‘destroy creatively’, Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk must have a follow up plan. One conceptual prong of that is equality of opportunity for all Americans. It is then that tearing into DEI would be worth its while!
Have you liked the news article?