In messages all agency heads were instructed to deliver to their employees, the Trump Administration asserted that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) measures “divided Americans by race” and “resulted in shameful discrimination.”

In fact, it was hundreds of years of racism – individual, structural, and systemic – in support of a caste system that endures to this day that divided Americans by race and resulted in shameful discrimination. DEI was supposed to be the remedy.

If anything peels back the veneer from Trump’s anti-DEI order, it is the removal of videos from Air Force training programs that told the stories of the Tuskegee Airmen, the first Black pilots, and Women’s Airforce Service Pilots, or WASPs, the first female pilots, to take to the air for the American military. The anti-DEI movement is clearly about returning white men to their rightful place in the hierarchy, in the eyes of the caste system’s adherents, and erasing the contributions of anyone else. (The Tuskegee Airmen video is being shown again, following a public outcry.)

So effective and ingrained is the American caste system that when the Nazis first came to power in the early 1930s, seeking means by which to marginalize the Jewish population, they studied American Jim Crow policies. They were impressed that the U.S. could so effectively subjugate an entire class of people and still attract worldwide admiration.

This is the world to which the Trump Administration, MAGA, and the reshaped Republican Party want to return. White supremacy is at the heart of the anti-DEI movement.

Merit Sounds Good, Doesn’t It?

The newly elected presidential administration has made its intentions clear: hiring and promotion decisions in both the public and private sectors should be based strictly on merit. While this focus on meritocracy appears fair and logical on the surface, it overlooks the inherent flaws and inequalities embedded within meritocracy’s failed system.

The term “meritocracy” was coined by Michael Young in his 1958 satirical work, “The Rise of the Meritocracy.” Young envisioned a dystopian society where social status was determined solely by intelligence and effort, leading to a new form of elitism and social stratification. While intended as a critique, the concept of meritocracy has been widely adopted, often with the belief that it promotes fairness and equal opportunity. It has even been touted as the equitable replacement for the aristocracy.

However, the reality is far more complex.

The Flaws of Meritocracy

The meritocracy promises a level playing field. It fails to acknowledge the inherent advantages and disadvantages individuals possess due to their socioeconomic background, gender, race, and other factors. As researchers have noted, “Merit is often a product of privilege.”  Children born into affluent families have access to better schools, resources, and social networks, providing them with a significant head start in life. For example, the wealthiest school districts in the United States spend more than double per student compared to middle-class schools, and elite private schools spend up to six times as much. This disparity in opportunities undermines the very foundation of a merit-based system, as individuals are not judged solely on their abilities but also on the circumstances they were born into.

In his book, “The Meritocracy Trap,” Yale-educated lawyer Daniel Markovits notes that the best financial firms and law practices hire the top students from the best schools. Those individuals go on to earn staggering incomes, enabling them to enroll their children in the best pre-schools, private schools, and college preparatory schools, ensuring they will get into Harvard and Yale so that they will be offered jobs by the top financial institutions and law firms, even if students without that privilege have deeper intellects or are better suited to these kinds of jobs.

The concept of “merit” itself is subjective and often influenced by unconscious biases. These biases can shape how we perceive and evaluate others, leading to unfair advantages for certain groups. A study by Harvard researchers revealed that standardized tests, frequently used to assess merit, are unconsciously biased in favor of white, affluent students. This bias perpetuates existing inequalities and reinforces the advantages of those already in positions of power.

In addition to the issue of unequal opportunities, meritocratic institutions often fail to provide social justice and frequently reward arbitrary qualifications. The very definition of “merit” can be manipulated to favor certain skills or attributes over others, further entrenching existing power structures.  (In organizations seeking to develop and sell products to diverse consumer demographics, an all-white product team is unlikely to succeed as well as a team whose membership reflects the demographic to which it is targeting its goods or services. Thus, the qualifications for membership on that team may define merit differently.)

Perhaps most importantly, the meritocracy myth fuels internalized ableism, racism, and sexism. By placing the onus of success solely on the individual, it creates a system where those who fail are often led to blame themselves for their lack of achievement, regardless of the systemic barriers they may face. This can have devastating psychological and social consequences, leading to feelings of inadequacy, shame, and hopelessness.

Even if we were to achieve complete equality of opportunity, meritocracy still falls short. As Michael Sandel argues in his book “The Tyranny of Merit,” a meritocratic system can lead to a sense of self-blame for those who don’t succeed and a sense of superiority for those who do. This creates a divisive society where those at the top feel entitled to their position while those at the bottom are left feeling like failures, regardless of their efforts or contributions.

The Business World: A Case Study in Meritocratic Inequality

While the flaws of meritocracy are evident across society, the business world provides a particularly stark example of how these flaws play out in practice. Companies may strive to create a fair and equitable environment, but unconscious biases can easily seep into hiring and promotion decisions. Managers may unknowingly favor individuals who fit a certain profile or come from similar backgrounds, hindering the advancement of those from underrepresented groups. This is further complicated by the fact that meritocracy, as practiced, has historically been intertwined with discrimination, making it difficult to achieve true fairness.

An overemphasis on individual performance can create a hyper-competitive environment that undermines collaboration and teamwork. When employees are solely focused on their own advancement, they may be less inclined to share knowledge, support colleagues, or contribute to the overall success of the organization. This can stifle innovation and hinder productivity.  (Studies repeatedly demonstrate higher levels of innovation from diverse teams.)

The belief that an organization is meritocratic can also lead to biased behavior from managers. When managers believe they are operating in a system that rewards merit, they may be more likely to overlook their own biases and make decisions based on subjective criteria rather than objective measures of performance.

Meritocratic systems in the business world can also contribute to “snowball inequality,” which I mentioned earlier.  This is the phenomenon that occurs when those who achieve success through merit are able to use their wealth and influence to provide their children with an unfair advantage, perpetuating inequality across generations. This creates a cycle where those at the top maintain their position while those at the bottom struggle to catch up, regardless of their talent or effort.

Negative Consequences of Meritocracy

Beyond the individual and organizational level, a purely merit-based system has broader societal consequences. It can lead to increased inequality, decreased social mobility, and potential psychological harm.

As discussed earlier, meritocracy often fails to account for the unequal starting points of individuals, leading to a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of those already privileged. This can – and has – exacerbate existing social divisions and create a society where opportunities are increasingly limited for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Meritocracy can contribute to a decline in social mobility. When success is seen as solely dependent on individual merit, it creates a system where those born into poverty have limited opportunities to improve their social standing, regardless of their abilities or hard work. This can lead to a rigid social hierarchy where individuals are trapped in their social class, with little chance of upward mobility. (This, of course, is precisely the intent of the anti-DEI movement.)

The psychological consequences of meritocracy can also be significant. As mentioned earlier, the belief in a meritocratic system can lead to internalized ableism, racism, and sexism. It can also create a culture of blame where individuals who fail to achieve success are seen as solely responsible for their shortcomings, regardless of the systemic barriers they may face. This can lead to feelings of shame, inadequacy, and hopelessness, particularly among those from marginalized communities.

Research has also shown that meritocracy can have negative health consequences, particularly for African Americans. In a society where racism and other barriers to success persist, the belief in meritocracy can lead to increased stress and feelings of hopelessness, which can have detrimental effects on physical and mental health.

Perhaps the most striking example of the negative consequences of meritocracy is the “paradox of meritocracy.” This paradox highlights how organizations that emphasize meritocratic values can actually exhibit greater gender bias. Ironically, working in an environment that highlights meritocracy might make individuals believe that they are fair and objective, and as a result, make them more likely to display their biases.

Alternatives to Meritocracy: Embracing Diversity and Inclusion

Recognizing the limitations of a purely merit-based system, many organizations have adopted alternative approaches to hiring and promotion that prioritize diversity and inclusion alongside – not instead of – merit. These approaches recognize the value of diverse perspectives and experiences in fostering innovation and creating a more equitable workplace.

Companies like Costco, Apple, and Cisco Systems have implemented comprehensive diversity and inclusion initiatives, setting targets for the representation of women and minorities in leadership positions. They have also invested in programs to support the advancement of underrepresented groups, providing mentorship opportunities, leadership training, and resources to overcome systemic barriers.

Other companies are using skills-based hiring to access a more diverse talent pool. This approach focuses on evaluating candidates based on their practical abilities and competencies rather than traditional qualifications like degrees and certifications. By prioritizing skills over credentials, these companies are able to identify and hire talented individuals from a wider range of backgrounds, fostering innovation and creating a more inclusive workplace.

In addition to diversifying hiring practices, companies can also provide opportunities for growth beyond promotions. This can include offering training programs, mentorship opportunities, and lateral moves that allow employees to develop new skills and expand their knowledge without relying solely on a hierarchical system of advancement.

Moving Beyond Meritocracy: A Call for a More Just System

The pursuit of a purely merit-based system is a failed endeavor. It ignores the realities of systemic inequalities and the inherent biases that shape our perceptions and decisions. To create a truly just and equitable society, we must move beyond the myth of meritocracy and embrace a more holistic approach that considers factors beyond individual merit.

This requires a fundamental shift in our thinking, acknowledging the role of privilege and unconscious bias in perpetuating inequality. We must face a reckoning in America over our race-based caste system. As a nation, we must commit to creating a truly level playing field by providing equal opportunities for education, resources, and support to all individuals, regardless of their background.

By embracing diversity, fostering inclusion, and addressing systemic barriers, we can create a society where everyone has the chance to thrive and reach their full potential. This is not about giving handouts or lowering standards, but about creating a system that is truly fair and just, where individuals are judged on their abilities and contributions, not on the circumstances they were born into.

The new administration’s emphasis on meritocracy is engineered to exacerbate existing inequalities and further marginalize those already disadvantaged. Instead of focusing solely on merit, we must prioritize policies and practices that promote equity, diversity, and inclusion. This includes investing in education, healthcare, and social programs that provide everyone with a fair chance to succeed. It also means addressing systemic barriers such as racism, sexism, ageism, and ableism that prevent individuals from reaching their full potential.