If critics of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs truly want to understand what they are criticizing, they should start by understanding what those programs actually do.
Much of the political rhetoric surrounding DEI rests on a simple assumption: that these initiatives exist primarily to hire underqualified minorities over more qualified white applicants.
But that assumption misunderstands the purpose of many DEI programs.
In many workplaces, DEI initiatives are not hiring programs at all. They are training programs focused on workplace conduct, like how employees interact with one another, how discrimination complaints are handled, and how organizations avoid hostile work environments.
In other words, they are about behavior inside the workplace, not simply about who gets hired.
This distinction is often lost in political debates.
Critics frequently frame DEI as a system that lowers standards or promotes unqualified candidates. Yet those claims are rarely supported with concrete evidence. Instead, the arguments often rely on anecdotes, rumors, or viral stories that later turn out to be false or exaggerated.
The “litter box in schools” rumor is a good example of how quickly misinformation can spread when it reinforces existing political narratives. The story circulated widely online despite having no factual basis.
The same pattern often appears in debates about DEI.
Whenever a person from a marginalized group enters a field traditionally dominated by white men, whether as a pilot, executive, professor, or public official, critics sometimes assume that the person must have been hired to satisfy a quota rather than because of their qualifications.
That assumption says less about hiring practices than it does about the expectations behind it.
It reflects a long-standing cultural narrative suggesting that success among minorities must be explained by special treatment rather than merit.
Yet there are many examples throughout American history that challenge that assumption. The Tuskegee Airmen, for example, demonstrated extraordinary skill and discipline during World War II despite facing discrimination and skepticism about their abilities.
The same dynamic continues today.
A recent viral video showed a Black woman completing her first liftoff during pilot training. Professional pilots reviewing the footage described the maneuver as textbook and appropriate for the conditions. Yet some online commentators quickly turned the moment into an argument about DEI and supposed lowered standards.
This response illustrates how quickly discussions about diversity can become framed through suspicion rather than evidence.
At the same time, conversations about merit often ignore another powerful force in hiring: nepotism.
Family connections, social networks, and institutional favoritism have long shaped access to jobs and opportunities across many industries. These advantages disproportionately benefit those already connected to existing power structures.
Yet these dynamics rarely receive the same level of scrutiny as diversity initiatives.
The result is a debate that focuses intensely on hypothetical examples of unqualified minority hires while overlooking longstanding systems that have quietly shaped opportunity for generations.
If we are going to have an honest discussion about merit and fairness, then the conversation needs to address all of the ways opportunity is distributed, not just the ones that fit a particular political narrative.
The goal is not to flood various industries with underqualified people who check off certain boxes in a checklist of representation from marginalized communities. That is not how DEI works.
Rather, the goal should be to build institutions where ability, preparation, and performance actually matter more than assumptions about who belongs in a particular role, and everyone has an equal opportunity to get and to promote in various careers without doing so in a hostile work environment.