DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It may sound good on face value, but it is insidious in the way it is often applied in practice.
Diversity - The assumption is that diversity is good, but is it at the expense of merit? For example our school committee lamented that our faculty didn't have enough minority faculty. When we hire faculty shouldn't an effort be made to hire the best qualified teachers on the basis of merit and not skin pigmentation? Of course we should advertise openings widely so that all may apply, but when the actual hiring decisions are made shouldn't the decision be colorblind? Isn't hiring someone based on their race inherently racist? Our students deserve the best and the brightest, "valuing one individual over another on the basis of race, gender or other immutable characteristics is inherently immoral."*
Equity - Equity isn't the same thing as equality. Yes we must be fair to all and offer equal opportunity to all, but equity in the name of fairness has been used an equal outcome among groups. It has been misused to the point where it is only considered equitiable if there are equal numbers in hiring. If that standard is used we would have to fire many if not most of our elementary school teachers as there are more women than men teaching elementary students in our district. Does that make sense? Is that fair? Of course not. Obviously we want to hire the best teachers but should a less qualified man be hired over a much more qualified woman on the basis of equity?
Inclusion - This has become a practice of hiring not based on merit, but because it is thought that that certain people have been excluded for things like their race, gender, or sexuality. How does hiring on that basis improve quality? Men have historically not gone into elementary school teaching and women historically have not gone into STEM teaching, but does that mean we need to only hire men to teach 1st grade or women to teach physics at Minnechaug to be inclusive? In my opinion we should only look at the individual person applying for the job. If they happen to be a man or a woman, short or tall, black, brown, or white shouldn't come into the equation at all. Again we must cast the net widely, let it be known that there are openings to attract as many qualified applicants as possible, but only hire the most qualified based upon their education, experience, how they come across in their interview.
Historically, some groups have enjoyed systematic cultural and institutional privileges over other groups for a variety of reason.* The problem with DEI is that, rather than correcting for injustices, new ones are created. In an effort to aheive diversity, it may mean less qualified people are hired. Striving for equity can hurt equal opportunity for qualified individuals. Inclusion can mean exclusion of the best and brightest. The result is a work force that ticks all the DEI boxes, but can be a less qualified one.
The answer is to search high and low for the best and brightest and then only pick them on merit with no other consideration. Isn't that what normal people do when they look for a doctor, a lawyer, plumber, or an electrician. Isn't that what we want our school district to do when they hire teachers and staff? Who among us would hire a doctor solely based upon their gender, race, or anything else except their merit and reputation. Who would want a less qualified tradesmen working on their home just because they ticked off some DEI box? If you are honest with yourself you wouldn't hire anyone on the basis of DEI. On the other hand you wouldn't discriminate against a doctor if they were the best in their field because they didn't look like you if you hoped for the best outcome. Why should we promote DEI in the education of our students?
