Authentic, Merit-Based Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

For more than 50 years, the United States has tried to heal from the scars of its tumultuous history of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws—systems largely upheld by Democrat-led institutions that enforced inequality and racial division. ^[i]

In the aftermath of this period, efforts like affirmative action were seen as a noble attempt to advance equality, but today, there is growing skepticism surrounding these policies. Politicians have used Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and affirmative action to create systems that often prioritize political agendas and extreme racism over true fairness.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed affirmative action, citing three key reasons:

1. Violation of Equal Protection : The Court ruled that race-based preferences violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. Policies that create advantages for some groups while disadvantaging others undermine fairness. ^[ii] ^[iii]

2. Merit-based Standards : The Court emphasized that admissions and hiring should prioritize merit, such as academic achievements, rather than race. Although affirmative action was designed to address systemic inequalities, the Court found that it often perpetuated discrimination. ^[iv]

3. Diminishing Effectiveness : The Court found that affirmative action had become less effective over time and suggested that race-neutral approaches, such as considering socioeconomic status, could achieve similar goals without relying on race. ^[v]

These rulings raise a crucial question: Why do DEI policies promote an agenda of systemic discrimination and do they actually serve their intended purpose?

The Limits of DEI: The Diversity Dilemma

While DEI policies were originally designed to address historical inequalities, they have evolved into a divisive force. One major criticism of DEI is its oversimplified categorization of people based solely on alleged skin color or on a labeling of race. With over 7,000 ethnicities globally, true diversity is far more complex than DEI acknowledges. For example, should an American who’s ancestors are from Korea be considered more deserving of a job than someone with ancestors from Uganda?

To make things more complex, I spoke to some friends from Asia or Africa, and many had pedigree of 100% pure ancestry going back hundreds of years. Thus, some of my friends from Asia, India, Arabia and Africa are 100% pure in their respective single ethnicity going back generations.

In contrast, most of the average Caucasians today living in the USA are a mix of multiple ethnicities and cultures including EU, Scandinavia, Mediterranean Blood, Hispanic, East or West Asian, Arab DNA, India, Native American, and African DNA. The average American might be: French, Italian, German, Irish, Sicilian, North African, and dozens of ethnicities. This complex ethical dilemma exposes the flaws of DEI’s racial based but non-ethnic framework.

According to 23 And Me, in South Carolina, roughly 13 percent of self-identified whites have 1 percent or more African ancestry, while in Louisiana the amount is a little more than 12 percent. In Georgia and Alabama the number is closer to 9 percent. ^[vi]

This complexity challenges DEI’s reliance on superficial race categories. If we want to appreciate diversity fully, we must move beyond labels and instead consider ethnic backgrounds, lived experiences, geographical backgrounds, and unique talents that contribute to the richness of diversity.

Additionally, DEI policies often fail to account for the fact that many people are a blend of multiple ethnicities. As someone with Sicilian, Egyptian, Hispanic, Irish, Scots, Native American, Arab, and Asian Minor ancestry, I understand that true diversity transcends simple labels. Many Americans, especially those of mixed descent, embody the very diversity that DEI claims to promote, but they are often overlooked or disregarded due to rigid skin color or racist classifications. ^[vii]

DEI and Reverse Discrimination: A Flawed System

The widespread implementation of DEI policies across government agencies and corporations has led to accusations of reverse discrimination. By prioritizing racial diversity over merit, these policies have unintentionally allowed discriminatory practices to flourish, sidelining individuals who do not conform to these narrow categories.

The great philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche warned against the dangers of imposing one-size-fits-all ideals on individuals, arguing that such systems suppress individuality and stifle progress. John Stuart Mill similarly warned that forced diversity undermines individual freedom. By prioritizing group identity over merit, DEI systems suppress individual potential, creating barriers to personal growth and societal progress.

Vilfredo Pareto argued that socialist systems, by concentrating power in the hands of the state, stifle innovation and creativity. DEI policies, with their rigid focus on group identity, mirror this suppression of competition. By limiting individual contributions based on race, rather than promoting merit and creativity, DEI creates a system that prevents society from achieving its full potential.

The Unintended Consequences of DEI

For many individuals, DEI has not created the opportunities it promised. While some thrive under DEI systems, others face exclusion, as their qualifications are disregarded in favor of group identity. Over the years, I’ve experienced firsthand how DEI policies have led to missed opportunities.

As part of a personal “mystery shopper” experiment over the last 25 years, I sent out hundreds of resumes to various organizations and government bodies over the last two decades, intentionally omitting any mention of my ethnicity or background.

Despite holding a doctorate, an MBA, international law credentials, licenses, awards, and a wealth of work experience, I rarely ever received responses. I’ve often wondered why a highly qualified individual like myself—one with an extensive background in law, business, and education—was continually overlooked for opportunities in the USA.

Eventually, I called one organization to inquire about why I hadn’t received a response. To my surprise, the manager confessed that my resume was "banned" because the photo showing my appearance was considered an unfair advantage. This absurdity made me question the ethics and logic of our nation's hiring processes.

The reality is that a photo reveals far less about an applicant than a name, location, or academic history. Therefore, policies that prioritize group label or identity over merit and skills and “full spectrum” diversity have led to this misguided approach . ^[viii]

This experience is a common one for many individuals, particularly those who do not conform to the narrow definitions of DEI. Many talented people, especially those from regions outside major urban centers, face the same barriers when applying for jobs or educational opportunities. DEI, in its current form, inadvertently leaves behind countless qualified individuals in favor of a rigid, politically driven system.

The Role of Immigration and Technological Changes

The workforce is evolving in response to technological advancements, and this has made the job market increasingly competitive. This is not only true for women or minorities but for everyone.

The flood of illicit immigration, particularly under policies supported by figures like Obama, Biden, and Clinton, has made it even harder for citizens—especially women and minorities—to secure stable housing, good schools, healthcare, and employment. Uncontrolled immigration has also strained public services, reducing the availability of healthcare, education, and safety for citizens already residing in the country.

Justice and Fairness: A Reconsideration of DEI

John Rawls’ principle of "justice as fairness" offers an interesting lens through which to view these issues. Rawls argued that a just society must ensure that the least advantaged are better off than they would be in an unequal system.

However, DEI policies seem to have moved away from this principle, shifting toward preferential treatment that does not always achieve true fairness and productivity potential. By focusing on race over skills, merit and ethnicity, DEI has undermined the very goals it was meant to achieve and done harm to Caucasians, Arabians, Indians, Hispanics, Africans and just about every other ethnicity. ^[ix] ^[x] ^[xi]

At its core, DEI fails to recognize the complexity of human identity. By categorizing people into rigid groups, it overlooks the richness of individual ethnicities, cultures, and lived experiences. For example, someone born in the United States with a multi-ethnic background may have valuable insights and perspectives that are disregarded in favor of someone with a single pure-ethnic lineage from Africa or Asia or anywhere else.

Enhancing Admissions and Employment: A New Approach

The flaws in the current DEI system suggest the need for a new approach—one that prioritizes merit, skills, inimitability, cultural diversity, ethnic diversity, and individual experiences. We should create admissions and hiring systems that recognize the diverse, complex backgrounds of individuals and reward their unique contributions.

A initial solution lies in focusing on whether candidates possess the qualifications, experience, and skills necessary for the role—skills that are essential in today’s rapidly changing workforce. See Trump’s Executive Order on Skills versus Degrees.

Sadly “blind hiring” practices have failed, where resumes are evaluated without the influence of personal characteristics such as a photo. These resumes without photos can easily be separated by the persons locale, university, degrees, organizations, charities, etc and thus, this method allows for more political nepotism and bigotry as those in HR or power can eliminate anyone who may not be “like minded”.

In education, admissions should prioritize academic achievement, intellectual curiosity, and personal potential, rather than race-based quotas. Schools and universities should aim to create a diverse student body, but without sacrificing academic rigor. This would ensure that students are admitted based on their qualifications, not on artificial group classifications. Further, President Trump has authorized investigations of colleges and universities that use DEI to discriminate against applicants. ^[xii] ^[xiii]

Here are some Remedial Effectiveness Issues beyond DEI that Government and Industry need to examine:

1. Is the job essential, and who does it benefit?

2. Does the job save money for stakeholders or taxpayers?

3. Does the job support American businesses, workers, or manufacturing?

4. Does the job enhance productivity, creativity, and profits for Main Street Americans?

5. Does the individual have the skills necessary for the role? (See Trump’s Executive Order 13932—Modernizing and Reforming the Assessment and Hiring of Federal Job Candidates)

6. Is it better to hire someone who hasn’t spent the majority of their career in government? For example, hiring someone with civilian skills who can improve the efficiency and function of non-profits, government agencies, or charities.

7. Since 60 is the new 40, governments and society should be open to hiring older workers who seek to contribute to society.

8. Can the government improve the cultural and ethnic diversity of their jobs and locate them in a diverse and inclusive way in all 50 states.

9. Can the job be performed by a qualified person remotely or in the U.S. Heartland? This could potentially reduce recruiting and costs by up to 50% compared to offering an office job in an expensive city. Countless professionals in the USA outside of big expensive cities would gladly take jobs with good benefits and less pay if they did not need to reside in dangerous cities with poor public schools.

Conclusion: Authentic Diversity, True Equality

In conclusion, DEI, in its current form, has failed to achieve the goals of fairness, inclusion, and equal opportunity. It has created new forms of discrimination and overlooked the inherent complexity of human identity. As society progresses, we must reevaluate our approach to diversity and inclusion. True diversity should be based on individual merits, experiences, geographical diversity, skills, cultural diversity, and capabilities—not simply on race or political ideology. ^[xiv]

When you see a super qualified, handsome, and well spoken young man of an Asian background get denied by literally all of the top schools he applied to, it is heartbreaking and this nation will never heal until the “social justice racists” are fired or penalized by the courts. ^[xv] For those who lack in geography skills, Asia represents over 49 nations from the Middle East and Lebanon to the Philippines and Indonesia. ^[xvi]

Maybe it is time for TEI? Trump Efficiency/Equanimity and Innovation which could take the: greed, emotion and guilt out of hiring and admissions processes and focus on improving society as a whole. With the shocking bombshell of a liberal activist giving test answers to DEI candidates who would be responsible for the safety of countless thousands each year, the social engineering activists have evolved into clandestine fanatics who are happy to jeopardize lives of women and children in the name of social justice. ^[xvii]

To borrow from Aristotle, the ethical life is one that strives for balance and virtue. DEI, in its current form, represents an imbalance that must be reconsidered and DEI is fully capable of hurting Women and Minorities across the USA. ^[xviii] We must embrace a more authentic and holistic view of diversity—one that truly values the rich, unique skills and backgrounds of individuals and fosters a society where people are judged based on their abilities and contributions, not their group identity. By doing so, we can create a society where opportunity is available to all, regardless of race, ethnicity, or background.

Overall, President Trump has offered to help fund the Platinum Plan for Women and Minorities which can help a new generation of people go to new heights. However, liberals and democrats are opposed to President Trump’s bold plan to help minorities in small business. It seems that the money saved from wasteful DEI programs could fund the Platinum Plan for years to come. ^[xix] ^[xx]

Democrats are still in denial that President Trump broke all records in receiving minority votes in his landslide victory. Trump actually won the Native American vote, a majority of Hispanic Men, and Trump won married women in a landslide across the USA. ^[xxi] Also, about 30% of Black men under 45 supported Trump, nearly doubling his 2020 share where Trump did 300% percent better than Bush or Romney with minorities. ^[xxii]

To make a long story short, we simply don’t have the money for speculative and oppressive DEI programs To calculate the total DEI spending for the USA based on the provided figures, we begin by reviewing the amounts allocated across various sectors.

The Department of Education spends $1 billion, the Department of Justice allocates $100 million, the Department of Health and Human Services dedicates $69 million, NASA contributes $20 million, and the total for global corporate expenditure in the U.S. in 2020 is $3.4 billion.

When we add up these individual amounts, we get: $4.589 billion. Thus, the total DEI spending for the USA is approximately $4.589 billion PER YEAR. This total represents the combined annual spending on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives from various government departments and corporate investments in the United States. The future value of $4.589 billion each year for 40 years at a 12% interest rate is approximately $3.52 trillion. ^[xxiii]

Thus, for example by getting rid of DEI complexities and waste, the taxpayers save over $3 trillion dollars over the next 40 years. In sum, it seems that President Trump has already balanced the budget this year ^[xxiv] for 2025 by using common sense and science to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, racism, failed schemes, and theft. ^[xxv]

______________

Commissioner George Mentz JD MBA CILS CWM® is the first in the USA to rank as a Top 50 Influencer & Thought Leader in: Management, PM, HR, FinTech, Wealth Management, and B2B according to Onalytica.com and Thinkers360.com. George Mentz JD MBA CILS is a CWM Chartered Wealth Manager ®, global speaker - educator, tax-economist, international lawyer and CEO of the GAFM Global Academy of Finance & Management ®. The GAFM is a EU accredited graduate body that trains and certifies professionals in 150+ nations under standards of the: US Dept of Education, ACBSP, ISO 21001, ISO 991, ISO 29993, QAHE, ECLBS, and ISO 29990 standards. Mentz is also an award-winning author and award winning graduate law professor of wealth management of one of the top 30 ranked law schools in the USA.Mentzenborg is just a term of art to describe the theory and process by George Mentz JD MBA ChE. CWM is for Chartered Wealth Manager ® and ChE Chartered Economist ® is a credential for economics professionals.

^[i] The Democratic Party’s History of Slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK – Social Justice Survival Guide

^[ii] Equal Protection Supreme Court Cases | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

^[iii] SCOTUS Rules In Favor Of Fairness and Individual Merit — The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal

^[iv] Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Protects Civil Rights and Merit-Based Opportunity by Ending Illegal DEI – The White House

^[v] Unpacking the Impact of the Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Ruling | Rennie Center

^[vi] DNA USA* Revisited How many Whites are also Black - 23andMe Blog

^[vii] 1 in 6 Hiring Managers Have Been Told to Stop Hiring White Men - ResumeBuilder.com

^[viii] When Blind Hiring Advances DEI — and When It Doesn’t

^[ix] Muslim and Arab Hiring Discrimination.pdf

^[x] (32) The Hidden Biases in DEI Hiring: A Historical Perspective and Its Impact on Future Practices | LinkedIn

^[xi] (32) What Is DEI and How is It Related to Reverse Discrimination? | LinkedIn

^[xii] Dozens of Universities Under Investigation in Trump's Anti-DEI Drive - Newsweek