DEI

I’m sure that everyone reading this knows of the terrible mid-air collision over the Potomac River the other night, when an American Airlines regional jet collided with an Army Blackhawk helicopter, at the cost of 67 human beings. In his usual decisive fashion, Donald Trump—before the remains of the victims were recovered or the aircraft black boxes retrieved—determined that the tragedy was caused by Democrats and DEI. When a reporter had the temerity to ask how he concluded that diversity hiring was a cause, Trump replied, “I have common sense, OK, and unfortunately a lot of people don’t. We want brilliant people to do this.” (We want brilliant people to be president, but sadly, we get Trump.)

I am not going to go on about issues involving air safety (I’m a recovering white-knuckle flyer), or the fact that the FAA is terribly understaffed. Lucian Truscott discusses some of those issues, including why night-vision glasses worn by the helicopter pilots might have contributed to the tragedy).

I am going to discuss DEI.

DEI has become the go-to villain for Republicans whenever they are caught screwing up. Next thing we know, we’ll be told on good authority that the January 6th patriotic demonstration at the Capitol was the result of Democratic DEI policies.

So what is DEI? The initials stand for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. What do they mean? Let’s start with what DEI is not. It is not affirmative action. It does not reduce the standards for hiring—properly run, a DEI program has no effect on standards at all.

DEI programs are intended for a simple purpose: To provide that every employee (or potential hire) is able to qualify for positions based only on criteria related to the job involved, and that every position will be filled by the most qualified person available. As one example of how DEI programs work, in at least some of them information given to hiring managers is scrubbed of data such as age, sex (or gender as it’s now being called, although I still think that’s a term of grammar), race and even education. The idea is to minimize, if not eliminate, sources of unconscious bias in selecting candidates. In other words, to use only relevant information in making choices.

DEI, then, seeks to eliminate—or at least minimize—the role of prejudice or favoritism in filling jobs. Who could be against that? Don’t we all want the best person for the job? Even if that means that the best air traffic controller is a Black trans woman with multiple piercings and very poor taste in clothes?

I’ll tell you that I have no trouble is saying that I sure want the best air traffic controller talking to the pilots when I fly, and I don’t give a damn about anything other than their qualifications and performance. (There’s that white-knuckle thing kicking in.) But to Donald Trump and his ilk, mere safety or objective performance can’t be decisive. To them, being white and male and Christian (although Trump is no Christian by any reasonable standard) is much more important, even when human lives are at stake. As he demonstrated yesterday.

Republicans scream “DEI! DEI! DEI!” reflexively, to distract the public, and also to conceal what DEI is really all about. So, I hope that those who read this will take the opportunity to stand up for DEI programs and—at least equally important—to explain why they are important, and good policy. Let’s hit back at ignorance and bigotry. Let’s not hesitate to say that DEI is a good thing.

-30-