The Fast Company Impact Council is an invitation-only membership community of leaders, experts, executives, and entrepreneurs who share their insights with our audience. Members pay annual dues for access to peer learning, thought leadership opportunities, events and more.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are sometimes described as market distortion, inefficiency, or antithetical to meritocracy. Yet, we can see that equity-related initiatives have actually served our notions of meritocracy. Removing artificial barriers to hiring or investing in exceptional individuals is simply smart business. Cutting all things DEI from government may prove less smart, efficient, or efficacious.
Barriers remain high for women, despite their advances. Women are outperforming men in so many areas. Since 2014, we’ve had a higher percentage of women who are college graduates compared to men. Increasingly, women earn the same or more than their husbands. And of course, on top of all of this, women continue to do the majority of household work within our homes.
Equity means opportunity
For some, this is a dire concern requiring new solutions for men to maintain ground. The emergence of the bro-verse is just one cultural manifestation of such fear. We also know that the U.S. president and conservative groups understand that gender roles are shifting because a large part of the president’s campaign was staked around this trend. Candidate Trump tapped into a fear and offered a shortcut, a leg up to individuals who aren’t receiving the same opportunities they once did (men), rather than relying on meritocracy to lift up those who deserve it. Others, recognizing the cost of lost potential, champion solutions that do not come at the expense of women.
Whatever the motivation, we cannot claim that men are being left behind—and something must be done—while also dismantling diversity and equity programs across the federal government. We cannot recognize the value in helping certain groups and then say that targeted interventions designed for other groups are not necessary or might be harmful. Our very intention underscores what we know to be true. We are better when we remove barriers to full participation and remedy the effects of intentional and unintentional exclusions. Clearly, we understand that neither meritocracy nor efficiency can be achieved without our best contributors sidelined.
Government investment needs dedicated public servants
Consider Gladys West, PhD, a mathematician whose precise calculations of the Earth’s surface helped develop the technology we now know as the Global Positioning System (GPS). Her groundbreaking work was made possible through government investment and public service, as she played a critical role in the Navy developing technologies that benefit us all today.
Many other technological advances that we cannot live without came from government investment. The obvious example is the internet, which was the result of a massive level of investment from the federal government. Elon Musk would likely have a different career without those federal dollars and West’s genius.
Now I worry about who is being cut out of our federal agencies, all in service of efficiency and meritocracy. Who are today’s innovators like West, who may not get a chance to invent the next revolutionary technology like GPS?
If we truly care about meritocracy, we will stop this senseless disregard for talented, skilled, and knowledgeable federal public servants. We should ensure that those dedicated public servants— especially women and people of color—can continue their work building a better country for us all.
Joe Scantlebury, JD, is CEO of Living Cities.