In the attempt to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion, one word – merit – has stood out as an effective cudgel. The president's executive orders aim to restore “meritocracy” and “merit-based opportunity“Of the scourge of DEI. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth conviction the “toxic ideological garbage” of inclusive practices while praising the idea of “merit only.” Activists against diversity efforts echo this theme. Heather Mac Donald, author of the book “When Race Trumps Merit,” states: “Nowadays, you can have diversity or you can have meritocracy. You can't have both.” When the CEO of Scale AI argued that DEI should be replaced by MEI (merit, excellence and intelligence), Elon Musk amplified the proposed change as “excellent.”
As scholars of diversity initiatives, we agree that the merit ought be a top priority in admissions, hiring and promotions. After all, one of the main reasons our society still needs diversity, equity, and inclusion is to overcome a long history of unfairly evaluating people based on criteria other than merit. This injustice can arise from decisions based on disadvantages, such as racism or sexism. It also arises from decisions based on advantages, such as nepotism or pay-to-play agreements. The promotion of merit has always been intertwined with the promotion of equal opportunity, and we must make that connection clearer in public debate. Those of us who support a more equal society should be able to reclaim the buzzword “merit” from anti-inclusion ideologues.
A major obstacle to achieving this has been a flank of the pro-inclusion community that is allergic to the word “merit,” thus fueling the misconception that it belongs to its opponents. Some advocates of diversity initiatives argue that merit and meritocracy are “gap,” to “myth” either “the antithesis of the fair”; they accept the detractors' approach to the issue, in which an approach focused on inclusion is a alternative to a merit-based system. Many diversity leaders have told us that they have a negative visceral reaction to the term “merit” and urge their advocates not to use it.
We found that inclusion advocates who find it irritating to emphasize merit generally do so for some combination of three reasons.
First, the concept of merit leaves a lot of discretion, so the dominant group that defines merit will abuse that discretion to favor itself. In a studyA sociologist asked white Californians how much weight college admissions officers should give to high school GPA. Respondents were much more likely to emphasize GPA when primed to perceive black students as white applicants' primary competition for college places. When primed to perceive Asian American students as the primary competition for white students, GPA suddenly became less important in respondents' minds. This result is likely due to stereotypes associating Asian American students with higher GPAs and Black students with lower GPAs. As the researcher noted, the difference in white responses “weakens the argument that white commitment to meritocracy is purely principled.” Instead, people twist the definition of merit to benefit their own group.
Second, critics point out that indicators identified with merit are often unearned. Factors such as family connections and wealth make it easier for some to develop capabilities than others. In another studyparticipants were told about a hiring committee focused on “getting the most qualified candidate” for a position. The committee chose one candidate, Jim, over another, Tom, because Jim had better grades, internships, and extracurricular activities. When participants discovered that Tom was as hardworking as Jim but lacked the family support and resources to attend good schools, study without a part-time job, or complete unpaid extracurricular activities, participants rated the supposedly merit-based hiring decision as significantly less fair.
A third objection is that merit emphasizes too much what people can do, rather than their innate value as human beings. In his book “The Tyranny of Merit,” philosopher Michael Sandel highlights the dangers of the “meritocratic imperative: the relentless pressure to perform, to achieve, to succeed.” Such pressure means that even people who have the necessary genetic or environmental supports to succeed in the meritocracy must endure “a challenge of high stress, anxiety, and lack of sleep” to emerge victorious. This imperative harms not only individuals but also society as a whole, because it cultivates a humiliating sense of failure among those who lose the contest for meritocracy and an attitude of complacency among those who win it. This result fuels populist anger among society's “losers” and a high tolerance for inequality among its “winners.”
Given these scorching reviews, why are we still fans of merit? Our central response is what we call the “social dependence” argument. If you go to a doctor, you hope that he or she has attended medical school and has the training to treat you with expertise that surpasses that of a layman scanning WebMD. If you get on a plane, you trust that the pilot can fly it safely and that he has gone through hundreds of hours of training to earn that trust. When you use your microwave, turn on your computer, or cross a bridge, you assume it won't explode, electrocute you, or collapse. A well-functioning society requires that trust, and to satisfy it, we need merit-based evaluations.
The three critiques, however, can guide us toward a more nuanced view of merit. For starters, we all need to be eternally vigilant about how bias might creep into merit-based evaluations and ensure systems are in place to limit it.
Decision makers could also consider how diversity can be a component of merit, rather than being antithetical to or independent of it. Black patients have better outcomes when treated by Black doctors. The accuracy of clinical drug trials depends on a diverse group of participants testing the drug. Teams made up of people from diverse backgrounds are smarter and more innovative than homogeneous ones.
Then, when merit is not earned, inclusion advocates can balance considerations of merit and justice. A hiring manager might fairly choose a candidate who has potential but has had limited opportunities to reach that potential.
Finally, advocates can respond to the argument that merit overvalues achievements and undervalues people. The key here is to think about different areas in which merit matters more or less. Public schools should admit all children, rather than limiting who can attend based on their intelligence or abilities. Hospitals should treat patients based on their needs, not based on whether they “deserve” treatment because they have followed a healthy lifestyle. Sports organizations often distinguish between competitive leagues that select for ability and open leagues that emphasize fun for all.
We do not want to put merit at the center of human life. Instead, we assert more modestly that merit should play an important role in common institutional decisions, such as hiring, access to sought-after educational and professional opportunities, and the granting of awards and prizes. In these areas, accepting credit can have its flaws. But like the saying that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others, merit is the worst form of evaluation except all the others. Let's think about the main alternatives, which include popularity, wealth, cronyism, nepotism or a lottery system. The merit is clearly superior to these other options.
In the broader cultural debate about diversity, equity and inclusion, “merit” is inescapable. Whichever side successfully claims credit will win this war of ideas.
That's why we applaud the strategy adopted by Democratic state legislator Erin Byrnes after the Michigan House of Representatives passed a bill last year requiring state agencies to hire employees based on merit. State Republicans touted the measure as “anti-DEI legislation” and stated, “There is no place for DEI in our government.” However, Michigan Democrats also supported the measure. Byrnes said the legislation would “create opportunities by eroding the old boys' club barrier as we work toward a more equal playing field for all Michiganders.” Speaking after the vote, Byrnes struck exactly the right tone: “Michigan House Republicans voted yes on the DEI bill. I love it for them.”
Kenji Yoshino and David Glasgow are the faculty director and executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at New York University School of Law. They are co-authors of the next “How equality wins: A New Vision for an Inclusive America,” from which this article is adapted.
