The High Cost of DEI: Why Performance Should Take Precedence Over Quotas
It is a fundamental truth, deeply rooted in the very fabric of human civilization, that competence, conscientiousness, and sheer ability are the driving forces behind genuine progress. Yet, we now find ourselves in an era where these virtues are systematically devalued in favor of ideological narratives prioritizing identity over achievement. Once the bastion of ingenuity, Big Tech is at a crossroads, struggling between the unrelenting demands of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives and the undeniable necessity of a meritocratic system. We must ask not whether diversity is inherently valuable—because, of course, it is—but instead whether it should be mandated at the expense of excellence.
There is an intrinsic danger in structuring institutions around an ill-conceived vision of equity—one that mistakenly assumes that equal outcomes, rather than equal opportunity, should be the standard of success. Such thinking ignores the reality that genuine competence cannot be manufactured through forced representation; it can only be cultivated through rigorous effort, discipline, and earned proficiency. The global landscape—where competitors such as China advance by focusing on ability rather than demographics—makes it clear that we risk stagnating and declining if we do not reclaim meritocracy as our foundational ethos.
The DEI Illusion: When Good Intentions Undermine Competence
One must be exceptionally careful when crafting policies that aim to remedy past injustices. The desire to correct historical inequalities is understandable, even commendable. However, we must not conflate this with the idea that forcibly altering hiring and promotion standards will produce better outcomes. Let's examine the core components of DEI:
Diversity: Representation vs. Performance
Diversity in itself is not a virtue. Including multiple perspectives can enhance problem-solving, but it is not the primary criterion upon which institutions should function. If we prioritize representation over skill, we risk diminishing collective competency. Consider the case of China's DeepSeek R1, the world's most efficient AI model. This unprecedented achievement was not the product of enforced diversity but an unrelenting commitment to skill development and expertise. Their education system, centered on rigorous selection via the Gaokao, ensures that only the most capable individuals rise to the top. Contrast that with the growing tendency in Western institutions to favor diversity hiring at the cost of proficiency. It is a recipe for mediocrity.
Equity: The False Premise of Equal Outcomes
Equity, as commonly understood, aims to ensure that all individuals end up in the same place, irrespective of talent or effort. This is a fundamentally flawed idea. It negates the fundamental truth that people differ in ability, conscientiousness, and ambition. As a minority myself, I reject the infantilizing notion that my achievements should be attributed to my skin color rather than my dedication. Nothing is more demeaning than implying that one's success is granted as a concession rather than earned through toil and sacrifice.
Inclusion: The Need for Authentic Collaboration
True inclusion does not arise from mandates; it is an organic byproduct of shared purpose and mutual respect. When organizations enforce inclusion artificially, they create a climate of resentment rather than cohesion. Professional collaborations and mentorships should emerge naturally from shared interests and aligned goals, not be engineered for the sake of optics. If a company organically forms a diverse team through its commitment to hiring the best, then so be it. But diversity should be a consequence of merit, not a substitute for it.
The Case for Meritocracy: Why It Matters
A civilization that prioritizes competence flourishes; one that prioritizes equity weakens. A meritocratic system is not merely an ideal but the only sustainable way to structure a functioning society. Those who resist this truth fail to recognize that we do not achieve fairness by artificially leveling the playing field. Instead, fairness is maintained by ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to rise based on their abilities.
Rewarding Effort and Discipline
A meritocratic society does not distribute rewards arbitrarily. It assigns them based on the value provided. This is precisely why we respect athletes, surgeons, and engineers—they excel because they have earned their status. A company that promotes individuals based on identity rather than ability creates a structure doomed to collapse under its weight. If you want to be the best, you must demonstrate that you are the best.
Innovation Thrives on Excellence
The most significant technological and scientific advancements have come from excellence, not enforced diversity. Look to history: the Wright brothers, Nikola Tesla, and Alan Turing were individuals who transformed the world not because of their demographic backgrounds but because of their genius. If we abandon meritocracy, we stifle the spirit of innovation that has propelled humanity forward.
Intelligence as a Bulwark Against Bias
The claim that meritocracy reinforces bias is based on a misapprehension. The best defense against bias is rigorous competency-based selection. If hiring and promotion are based on objective criteria—performance metrics, achievements, demonstrated skill—then biases become irrelevant. The most effective and fair way to eliminate discrimination is to insist on standards so high that only the most capable can meet them, irrespective of background.
The Path Forward: A Return to Rationality
We stand at a pivotal moment. Once the undisputed leader in technological and industrial innovation, the West is at risk of being overtaken by civilizations that remain unswervingly committed to competence and excellence. The solution is not to double down on ideological narratives that diminish the value of meritocracy. Instead, we must reaffirm the following principles:
Merit-Based Hiring and Promotion – The only justifiable criteria for professional advancement are skill, intelligence, and performance.
Equal Opportunity, Not Equal Outcomes – Provide the tools for people to excel, but do not guarantee success.
Authentic Inclusion – Let genuine bonds form through shared goals, not forced mandates.
Learning from Global Competitors – Study the meritocratic strategies employed by world leaders in STEM and industry, particularly those who prioritize performance over representation.
The uncomfortable truth—one that many refuse to acknowledge—is that success must be earned. We must reject the infantilizing notion that people cannot rise without external assistance and instead encourage individuals to cultivate the virtues of discipline, effort, and resilience. Suppose we fail to heed this warning and continue undermining merit in favor of ideology. In that case, we shall reap the consequences: stagnation, incompetence, and eventual collapse.
But we do have a choice. We can insist on excellence, uphold the dignity of genuine achievement, and embrace the meritocratic principles that have allowed civilization to thrive.
The only question is: Will we?