What Does DEI Really Mean?

Distressing Enragement Initiative? Deception, Envy, and Ignorance? Dangerous Enemy of Individualism? Didn’t earn it? All of the above?

What it most definitely does not mean is Diversity, Equity, and Inclusiveness.

Much has been argued regarding this subject, including by this writer: See here and here. Some positive actions are now underway to eliminate or at least diminish its unfair and harmful effects.

It’s becoming glaringly obvious that the practice of favoring tribal affiliation whether based on race, gender, gender preference, or any other perceived-as-a-"victimized" group when hiring for employment, appointing to positions, or admitting to educational institutions over individual merit is wrong at its moral root and deleterious in its practical results.

Let’s take morality first. Here we must differentiate between morality and legality.

An individual’s or a private company’s or organization’s moral code is theirs alone. If they choose to utilize what used to be called "affirmative action," or "social justice," or now "DEI" (only the latest term for the same practice) in selecting their positively "chosen ones" or discriminate against their disliked "whomevers" that is their business, and however counterproductive or gut-repulsive that is it should not be interfered with by government or anyone else.

If they violate the individual rights as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, then such becomes a legal matter to be adjudicated and if need be remedied in a court of law

Either way, morally — pro or con — discrimination against and favoritism for are wrong, but neither if practiced privately without infringing on the legally protected constitutional individual rights of any other individual are under the purview of government oversight. Private morality should not be legislated. Period.

If government bodies — any of the three branches — executive, legislative, judicial (plus agency bureaucratic) — practice discrimination against or favoritism for, then that rightly could be made illegal. (This is why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional. It may be proper that those employment strictures are placed upon government because government represents and (should) serve everyone but improper when placed upon private companies.)

When it comes to practical results, this is another matter. And it works both ways.

The individual of merit but passed over rightly feels bitterness not only toward the hiring/appointing/admitting person but also toward the inferior who takes a position that should go to them. And on some level the inferior who gets the position knows they are getting something they have not earned and do not deserve.

The superior individuals with demonstrable abilities and achievements will find a place for themselves somewhere properly valued, albeit not their first preference.

The inferior individuals who displaced the superior individuals have two choices. They can work very hard to improve themselves and actually become worthy of sincere respect for their efforts and accomplishments or they can bask in their ill-got positions and pretend to all, including themselves, that they are worthy (and sometimes even behave as if superior to others in order to bolster the pretense).

The two resulting phenomena of unearned positions are evident in inferior, unqualified elected officials as well as in those who gain them by appointment. The self-improving will gain not only genuine respect from others but self-respect as well. The inferior fakes will live a life of falsity that everyone observes but few will acknowledge for fear of being labeled prejudiced.

We often observe a haughtiness of fake superiority in those with little authentic ability but getting elected to positions of "authority" such as mayors, governors, and district attorneys as well as media personalities.

Finally, who are the winners and losers of reverse discrimination practices such as affirmative action, social justice, or DEI?

Well, individuals who initially obtain positions through unfair advantages but later become genuine achievers can certainly be called winners. However, it can be argued that those with the inner strength to improve their circumstances through their own efforts would have earned their rightful positions without being favored due to group identity.

The overqualified individuals who are passed over for opportunities will still be winners despite the obstacles placed in their way. Nevertheless, the pain of experiencing unjust rejections that prevent them from obtaining a well-deserved position — whether in school or business — can leave lingering resentment towards those who obtained their positions through less merit-based means.

Unfortunately, this resentment can lead to suspicions about capable individuals who merely resemble those in the favored group: "I wonder how they got to where they are?" This reflects the unintended negative consequences that can arise from misguided policies.

The losers are the pandered-to inferiors who remain inferior because they must become fakers for life burdened by the fact that deep down they know they are not worthy and got where they are only because of their "victimized" group identity.'=

Or in the case of elected officials by playing down to a perceived "victimization" of voters, they must live a lie that constantly requires fuel in the form of deceit to others that will by necessity include self-deception as well, all of which is exhausting and often the cause of unfocused anger — often masking self-loathing — and the desire to destroy anyone viewed as a threat to expose their lie.

Furthermore, individuals who know they are unqualified also know if only subliminally that others no matter how outwardly polite know it too. Worse, many unqualified individuals today are placed in professional positions requiring quick thinking, physical strength, and expertise way beyond their capabilities, and this can create actual physical danger to innocents who may suffer or even perish from their ineptitude.

Diversity — "variety" — exists naturally among people because every individual is different in their own way. Quotas based on group identity are artificial and can never work in reality.

Equity — "fairness" — means impartiality, so favoritism for group identity over individual identity is clearly ... unfair.

Inclusiveness — "completeness" — is achieved not by artificial distribution but by natural selection based on merit. End of story.

Alexandra York is an author and founding president of the American Renaissance for the Twenty-first Century (ART) a New-York-City-based nonprofit educational arts and culture foundation. She has written for many publications, including "Reader's Digest" and The New York Times. She is the author of "Crosspoints A Novel of Choice." Her most recent book is "Soul Celebrations and Spiritual Snacks." For more on Alexandra York — Go Here Now.