Real Meaning of “DEI Hire”

We interrupt our regularly scheduled series about stories “from the heart of business,” to have this non-partisan, pro-human discussion about the phrase being thrown about, “DEI Hire.”

If you’re on social media or simply paying attention, you’ve started to see or hear the term “DEI Hire.” You may wonder what it means.

What it literally means is that a person was hired with consideration of an organization’s values and commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion — hence, the DEI. What it really means is quite different. “DEI Hire” is a euphemism for anti-anti-discrimination, or let’s call it what it is — a campaign to denigrate efforts that dismantle obstacles which have for hundreds of years thwarted and prevented black and brown folk, and women, from the same employment opportunities available to their white counterparts.

To further this discussion, it would be helpful to look at some context.

Civil rights in employment

You can trace the DEI organizational values to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law got its teeth for enforcement through Executive Orders signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Executive 11246, as amended by 11375, prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin and gender. It was later expanded to include people with disabilities, the elderly and women in collegiate athletics. The legislation didn’t make discrimination in employment go away, but it was a beginning and progress was made. Corporate policies evolved and DEI became the framework for codifying how a company translates its values to be inclusive into real practices in areas such as hiring and promoting.

From the very beginning, these efforts were misunderstood, if I’m being generous. More likely, they were undermined by what may be the first example of mass-disinformation in modern times. People thought or wanted to believe that affirmative action was “reverse discrimination” — which is silly because you can’t have reverse discrimination, you either have discrimination or you don’t, but I digress. What they believed is that affirmative action simply gave more or unfair advantages to people of color and women. That these folks would not otherwise be qualified or competent to earn the opportunity.

To be fair, there is a grain of truth — some folks of color were not qualified. They didn’t have the same education or resources as their white counterparts. But, affirmative action did not advocate a free pass — it championed educational and supportive programs to raise up competence where it was lacking. In Johnson’s orders, affirmative action was created to “not discriminate in employment and take affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity…”. It not only looked forward, but it looked backward to remove the biases that created the injustices which lead to discrimination in the first place.

When I teach about it, I use this metaphor. There are two glasses of the same size — one is completely full, the other is half full. What they are filled with is OPPORTUNITY. The full glass has represented opportunities for what has been the majority (white males); the half-full represented opportunities for minorities and women. Affirmative action never intended to give minorities and women a bigger glass, just one that is as full as the glass for the majority.

Affirmative action today

In June, 2023, the US Supreme Court struck down the ability of organizations (specifically universities and colleges) to consider race as a factor in admissions. The ruling’s implications were more expansive than admission policies. The ruling has had the effect of essentially invalidating affirmative action programs in general. It hasn’t stopped organizations from doing the right thing in terms of being inclusive, but it has made it more difficult. Worse is that it has dredged up from the bowels of inhumanity the disdain for making people of color and women whole.

More than a dog-whistle, the way “DEI Hire” is being used today has pejorative connotations that are hateful and divisive. I summarize them in this way: You wouldn’t get this job on your merits — competence, skill or knowledge. So, a system was created to erroneously  “validate” your qualifications based only on your color, gender, orientation, etc. Therefore, we must call it out to correct the unfairness.

Don’t be fooled by the way this is framed as seeking justice for “flawed” employment practices. See it for what it is — a concerted campaign to put (or keep) people where they “belong” — in the confines of archaic, bigoted stereotypes.

This vile movement to stop some people is un-American, regardless of your political leanings. The “children” in the room have had way too much voice and influence lately. There is plenty of space in the world of employment to raise up everyone to pursue their dreams of success.  This is what creates caring communities at work, and that creates success for everyone — employees and their employers! C’mon, people, can we please be the adults in the room?

Next Column:  Back to Stories from the “Heart” of Business!

Dr. Santo D. Marabella, The Practical Prof, is a professor emeritus of management at Moravian University and hosts the podcast “Office Hours with The Practical Prof … and Friends.” His latest book, “The Lessons of Caring” is written to inspire and support caregivers (available in paperback and eBook). Website: ThePracticalProf.com; Twitter: @PracticalProf; Facebook: ThePracticalProf.

SOURCES & FURTHER READING:

Department of Labor, History of Executive Orders 11246 & 11375

Supreme Court Strikes Down College Affirmative Action Programs