Diversity-Equity-and-Inclusion initiatives, while conceived with good intentions, have increasingly become a double-edged sword. Originally designed to address systemic barriers and provide opportunities to historically marginalized groups, these policies have morphed into mechanisms that often prioritize identity over merit. This shift has undermined public trust in institutions and inflicted irreparable harm on the groups these policies aim to help. 

By eroding the perception of competence, DEI has inadvertently stigmatized minorities, perpetuated stereotypes and polarized society. 

Today, it’s firefighters. Tomorrow, it may be pilots, doctors and lawyers. The consequences of prioritizing demographics over qualifications are becoming impossible to ignore.

Twenty years ago, when individuals boarded planes and saw a minority in the cockpit, a common assumption was that he or she had earned the position through a rigorous vetting process. The confidence in their abilities was rooted in the belief that merit and performance were the primary criteria for selection. That confidence, however, is now being undermined by the incessant prioritization of DEI.

DEI initiatives often establish quotas or informal expectations for representation, creating the perception that identity may have played a role in hiring decisions. This perception is damaging on multiple levels. When passengers see a pilot who happens to be a minority, there is often a fraction of doubt: Did they get this job because they are the best at what they do? Or did they get this job because they are adequate while checking certain demographic boxes? This question, even if fleeting, directly results from DEI policies emphasizing identity over ability.

The implications extend beyond aviation. Imagine firefighters chosen not because they are the strongest, fastest or most prepared to save lives but because they fulfill diversity mandates. Imagine doctors whose qualifications are overshadowed by the perception that they were selected to meet quotas rather than because they excelled in their field. These scenarios breed mistrust, not just in the individuals involved but in the institutions that employ them.

One of the most insidious effects of DEI is how it unintentionally manufactures racism in a society that has made significant strides toward racial equality. In striving to prioritize underrepresented groups, DEI policies have created an environment where people begin to think differently — often unfairly — about others based on their demographics.

When a man, a White person, or a cisgender person is seen in a professional role today, there is an implicit assumption that they must have outperformed not only their peers but also the DEI standards that prioritize others. Conversely, when a minority is seen in the same role, people may wonder if their selection was based on merit or DEI considerations. This dynamic fosters resentment and reinforces damaging stereotypes.

Before the widespread adoption of DEI, meritocracy was the dominant framework in professions. The assumption was that anyone who held a position of responsibility had earned it through skill, dedication and competence. DEI has disrupted this framework, introducing doubt and skepticism where none previously existed. 

Ironically, this has made society more racist, not less. It has forced individuals who may not have harbored prejudices before to question the qualifications of others based on their race, gender or other demographics. By prioritizing identity over merit, DEI has sown division and mistrust, undermining the very goal of inclusivity.

The long-term consequences of DEI are profound and far-reaching. For minorities, the damage is particularly devastating. Those who genuinely excel in their fields and succeed through merit are now viewed with suspicion. Their accomplishments are tainted by the perception that they may have been handed opportunities rather than having earned them. This diminishes their credibility and undermines the progress they have worked so hard to achieve.

DEI policies risk entrenching a culture of mediocrity. Standards are inevitably compromised when identity becomes a primary consideration in hiring, promotions and admissions. Institutions prioritizing diversity over excellence risk losing their competitive edge and, more important, their public trust. A society that devalues merit stagnates and is unable to innovate or excel.

The ripple effect extends beyond the workplace. As DEI erodes trust in professional competence, it also undermines social cohesion. People begin to view others not as individuals with unique skills and talents but as representatives of their demographic group. This tribalistic mindset fosters division and amplifies the biases DEI sought to eliminate.

DEI was intended to create a fairer, more inclusive society. However, the current implementation has had the opposite effect, particularly for minorities. By prioritizing identity over merit, DEI has undermined trust in institutions, stigmatized underrepresented groups, and manufactured racism where it didn’t exist before.