The loudest, most incessant voices against DEI and for "meritocracy" are resoundingly quiet when it comes to favoring self-hating, incompetent Black voices that agree with them. They hate competent Black people, especially brilliant Black women that put the lie to Black inferiority. They champion fools like Hershel Walker, Byron Donalds and Mark Robinson. They target all women trying to integrate fields dominated by white males that are allowed to fail and destroy several times while championing dimwits like MTG, Aileen Cannon and Kelly Loeffler.
Unfortunately for women, especially Black women, DEI programs are mostly all talk, little action. They're forced to work in institutions that give them greater access to hiring, but lack frameworks to mentor, promote and guide them within increasingly hostile environments. Worse is the folding of these programs at the earliest hint of opposition. Then people like to pat themselves on the back and say "Well, at least we tried."
It's a lose-lose situation for Black people and other persons of color, and LGBTQ+ communities. They're better off remaining isolated and creating their own opportunities away from the spotlight.
DEI initiatives, though ostensibly designed to promote fairness and inclusivity, often yield unintended consequences that exacerbate the very disparities they aim to address. A study published in the American Sociological Review found that diversity training programs are largely ineffective, showing no measurable improvement in workplace equality. These programs often emphasize superficial markers of diversity, such as race or gender, over deeper qualities like merit and skill.
Rather than fostering harmony, DEI initiatives frequently sow division. A report revealed that mandatory DEI training sessions can create resentment among employees, leading to increased workplace hostility. In environments where identity politics take precedence over shared goals, innovation falters and morale plummets.
The legal ramifications of DEI policies cannot be ignored. The 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision banning affirmative action in college admissions underscores the increasing scrutiny of race-conscious policies. Companies like Meta and Amazon have scaled back their DEI programs, citing concerns over potential litigation and compliance risks. Financially, DEI initiatives divert significant resources from core business functions. Apple, a company renowned for its groundbreaking innovations, could better allocate these funds to research and development, ensuring its continued leadership in the tech industry.
Real-world examples illustrate the dangers of prioritizing DEI over meritocracy. At a leading tech company, aggressive diversity hiring quotas led to the recruitment of underqualified candidates, resulting in plummeting team performance and soaring employee turnover. Another troubling case involves a prestigious university that replaced merit-based scholarships with need-based awards aligned with DEI principles, alienating top-performing students and lowering academic standards.
One of the most insidious aspects of DEI is its tendency to stifle dissent. Critics who question the efficacy or morality of these initiatives often face professional ostracism or even termination. The canceled lecture of geophysicist Dorian Abbot at MIT is a stark example of this trend. This enforced conformity not only suppresses intellectual diversity but also discourages the critical debates essential for progress.
Beyond individual anecdotes, the broader cultural and economic implications of DEI warrant serious consideration. Studies have shown that DEI programs can reinforce stereotypes by overemphasizing group identities, rather than promoting individual achievement. Economically, poorly implemented DEI initiatives can lead to reduced productivity, as teams bogged down by ideological training sessions and identity-driven quotas struggle to meet performance goals.
Apple’s success has always been rooted in a commitment to meritocracy and excellence. By voting to phase out DEI initiatives, shareholders have the opportunity to reaffirm these principles. This decision is not about rejecting diversity but about embracing it in its most authentic form—as the natural result of a culture that rewards talent, creativity, and hard work. The company’s future depends on fostering an environment where the best ideas can flourish, free from the constraints of divisive policies.
DEI initiatives represent a misguided approach to addressing societal inequities, one that often does more harm than good. Apple’s shareholders have a unique opportunity to lead by example, rejecting these flawed programs and charting a path that prioritizes merit, innovation, and unity. Let us choose a future where excellence is the standard, and diversity emerges naturally from a shared commitment to fairness and opportunity.
Who said that LGBTQ or minorities cannot be qualified? How about hiring the brightest, the best and most talented without regard to their skin color, their plumbing or things that have absolutely nothing to do with things unrelated to the job? Hire by merit, that's how Apple got out of the garage.
Funny how “merit” wasn’t important when systematically refusing to hire certain genders and ethnicities was de rigeur. There was no meritocracy then. Now, as soon as anyone talks about systematically extending opportunities to the same people who were previously systematically excluded, we hear how there must be a meritocracy. There’s not much merit in that.
Agreed. The way to fight hate, is with more hate!
DEI is literally the opposite of hate. Hate is exclusion. Inclusion is literally what the I stands for. Increasing the recruitment pool almost always yields stronger teams.
Favoring one group or groups over another group is inherently exclusionary to the latter group. Thus, by your definition, DEI is hateful (which is obvious).
You don’t seem to know what the definition of “definition” is.
Taking down the “whites only” signs in a public high school and escorting black kids in to assure they get the same books and same teachers as the white kids is not “favoring one group or groups over another group.” It is enforcing the opposite.
Nor is it “favoring” the black kids in that high school to recognize that the deficiencies of the separate-and-unequal jr high and elementary schools they’d been to prior to desegregation means they may need extra assistance to catch up to their white peers who’d always gotten the new books and better facilities.
Yes, segregation is officially over (though taxpayer funded school voucher initiatives are working hard to restore it), but the unequal treatment continues to this day, and every initiative to change that, from the workplace all the way back to pre-school is met with opposition seeking to retrench the status quo while euphemistically relabeling it as a meritocracy.
It’s just another version of Jim Crow. Remember ol’ Jim? He had a bit of a passive aggressive vibe. “Sure, you can vote, but first you have to correctly tell me how many jelly beans are in this jar.”
Now it’s “Sure, you can compete for jobs in our meritocracy, but first you have to get an education after we’ve sucked the money out of public schools for these new ‘choice vouchers’ that you can’t use because you don’t have transportation to our private schools on the other side of town, and they won’t take a voucher as full tuition anyway. Also, you’d have to apply and be accepted, and clearly you’re unqualified. And don’t you dare accuse us of discrimination, because you can’t prove it. We’ve outlawed collecting demographic info on our admissions, because that would be ‘racist.’ ”
Who said that LGBTQ or minorities cannot be qualified? How about hiring the brightest, the best and most talented without regard to their skin color, their plumbing or things that have absolutely nothing to do with things unrelated to the job? Hire by merit, that's how Apple got out of the garage.
Funny how “merit” wasn’t important when systematically refusing to hire certain genders and ethnicities was de rigeur. There was no meritocracy then. Now, as soon as anyone talks about systematically extending opportunities to the same people who were previously systematically excluded, we hear how there must be a meritocracy. There’s not much merit in that.
Agreed. The way to fight hate, is with more hate!
DEI is literally the opposite of hate. Hate is exclusion. Inclusion is literally what the I stands for. Increasing the recruitment pool almost always yields stronger teams.
Favoring one group or groups over another group is inherently exclusionary to the latter group. Thus, by your definition, DEI is hateful (which is obvious).
You don’t seem to know what the definition of “definition” is.
Taking down the “whites only” signs in a public high school and escorting black kids in to assure they get the same books and same teachers as the white kids is not “favoring one group or groups over another group.” It is enforcing the opposite...
Lately I've found myself agreeing with you far more than not. Thanks for the rational, logical, and unemotional response to baiting.
Who said that LGBTQ or minorities cannot be qualified? How about hiring the brightest, the best and most talented without regard to their skin color, their plumbing or things that have absolutely nothing to do with things unrelated to the job? Hire by merit, that's how Apple got out of the garage.
Funny how “merit” wasn’t important when systematically refusing to hire certain genders and ethnicities was de rigeur. There was no meritocracy then. Now, as soon as anyone talks about systematically extending opportunities to the same people who were previously systematically excluded, we hear how there must be a meritocracy. There’s not much merit in that.
Agreed. The way to fight hate, is with more hate!
Wow. You think people are going to treat white dudes like white dudes have treated them all along? That's quite telling.
My goodness, all the verbal gymnastics here arguing against something as common sense as hiring the most qualified person for the job.
Yes a bunch of nonsense. DEI has always been misguided, it’s clearly going away, and good riddance.
Funny, as nearly every writer here at AppleInsider appears to be white! (based on the author photos)… Wesley, resign to make room for a DEI hire! Do the right thing!
What is the definition of “white”? I look white by every definition, but had a half middle eastern / half Eastern European heritage. But I’m a white….minority??
I personally believe that a lot of people, mostly those outside of this forum, don't fully understand the differences between Equity and Equality. When viewed in the context of the current situation, where disparities exist for historical reasons, a lot of people embrace equality as the gold standard with no concern about equity. Treating everyone the same and affording the same treatment and opportunity to everyone sounds fair. Equal opportunity sounds like a great thing. Only hire the best and brightest and most qualified without regard to any individual differences that do not directly apply to the position.
That's nirvana, a perfect solution, but only where inequities no longer exist. Equality is great, but it's only applicable where you have equity. Realistically, inequities have always existed around certain individual conditions like wealth, power, influence, lucky sperm club, etc. If your dad just bankrolled a new campus building at Harvard, there's probably a very good chance you're going to get into Harvard even if it's through a ping-pong scholarship if all the legacy admissions are already filled. Inherent traits that exist at a human level when they are born into the world should not be sources of inequity.
The intention of programs like DEI are to address inequities - even in the face of causing inequalities. For anyone on the losing end of the inequality calculus it will obviously view inequality as an injustice. But if you and society believe that true (or more inclusive) equality cannot be achieved until inequities are dealt with, it is a price to be paid today for the sins of our forebearers. No matter how you look at solving the problem, someone is going to feel like they're getting screwed. Those who want equality over all else and want to put away the past because they as individuals had no influence over it feel screwed. Those who are affected by existing inequities due to things they have no control over feel like they are never going to be on level ground with those who are unaffected.
Life is not fair, but the reasons behind the unfairness should be resolved if it is within our power to do so, in my opinion. At the very least we should be listening to both sides without trying to jam our opinions down other people's throats. As a country we have always made great human and financial sacrifices in an attempt to rectify situations that have surfaced far beyond our own shores. Why we don't have the same resolve to rectify things at home when the price to be paid is so much less is something I will never understand.
Who said that LGBTQ or minorities cannot be qualified? How about hiring the brightest, the best and most talented without regard to their skin color, their plumbing or things that have absolutely nothing to do with things unrelated to the job? Hire by merit, that's how Apple got out of the garage.
Funny how “merit” wasn’t important when systematically refusing to hire certain genders and ethnicities was de rigeur. There was no meritocracy then. Now, as soon as anyone talks about systematically extending opportunities to the same people who were previously systematically excluded, we hear how there must be a meritocracy. There’s not much merit in that.
Agreed. The way to fight hate, is with more hate!
DEI is literally the opposite of hate. Hate is exclusion. Inclusion is literally what the I stands for. Increasing the recruitment pool almost always yields stronger teams.
Favoring one group or groups over another group is inherently exclusionary to the latter group. Thus, by your definition, DEI is hateful (which is obvious).
You don’t seem to know what the definition of “definition” is.
Taking down the “whites only” signs in a public high school and escorting black kids in to assure they get the same books and same teachers as the white kids is not “favoring one group or groups over another group.” It is enforcing the opposite.
Nor is it “favoring” the black kids in that high school to recognize that the deficiencies of the separate-and-unequal jr high and elementary schools they’d been to prior to desegregation means they may need extra assistance to catch up to their white peers who’d always gotten the new books and better facilities.
Yes, segregation is officially over (though taxpayer funded school voucher initiatives are working hard to restore it), but the unequal treatment continues to this day, and every initiative to change that, from the workplace all the way back to pre-school is met with opposition seeking to retrench the status quo while euphemistically relabeling it as a meritocracy.
It’s just another version of Jim Crow. Remember ol’ Jim? He had a bit of a passive aggressive vibe. “Sure, you can vote, but first you have to correctly tell me how many jelly beans are in this jar.”
Now it’s “Sure, you can compete for jobs in our meritocracy, but first you have to get an education after we’ve sucked the money out of public schools for these new ‘choice vouchers’ that you can’t use because you don’t have transportation to our private schools on the other side of town, and they won’t take a voucher as full tuition anyway. Also, you’d have to apply and be accepted, and clearly you’re unqualified. And don’t you dare accuse us of discrimination, because you can’t prove it. We’ve outlawed collecting demographic info on our admissions, because that would be ‘racist.’ ”
Looks like you've spent a ton of effort asswaging your cognitive dissonance rather than looking objectively at this issue, turning all your positions into unfixable knots. The people pushing DEI are the same ones 'outlawing' demographic info. We spend more money on education for much poorer results relative to other nations. Vouchers don't work because.. transportation? C'mon. Nobody wants to say the "p" word when it comes to education: parents. It's funny how you take the agency away from POC by attributing all of the inequity purely to external factors. It's not a healthy or productive way to deal with this issue. But, people would rather keep the status quo then feel a bit uncomfortable, which, as someone who spent 10 years helping (primarily) POC kids heal from emotional trauma, is disheartening.
My goodness, all the verbal gymnastics here arguing against something as common sense as hiring the most qualified person for the job.
“Most qualified” meaning some artificial measurement of skill that will contribute to the product. Given their poor quality management skills many who claim qualifications are also spouting I do wonder if they are not being hired because they do actually lack merit and those hired previously with qualifications have tanked the value of the qualifications.
It is not coincidental that those pushing for a return to “merit” also push other failed management ideas on a regular basis. Actually good leaders love diversity as it creates room for everyone in to team to lead from the side and show what they capable of.
My goodness, all the verbal gymnastics here arguing against something as common sense as hiring the most qualified person for the job.
Actually good leaders love diversity as it creates room for everyone in to team to lead from the side and show what they capable of.
What a sentence.
Good leaders look to hire the best person for the job, race or ethnicity be damned. It wouldn't be very comforting to go into major surgery with a doctor who was hired because of DEI, even if better candidates were passed over because of the initiative.
If you're saying people are being passed over because of their sex, race, or ethnicity, there are ample existing laws on the books to bring action against those practicing discriminatory behavior.
DEI is dying and good riddance.
Any company that hopes to succeed is not filtering people out because of their sex, race, or ethnicity. Good workers are good workers. End of story.
My goodness, all the verbal gymnastics here arguing against something as common sense as hiring the most qualified person for the job.
Actually good leaders love diversity as it creates room for everyone in to team to lead from the side and show what they capable of.
What a sentence.
Good leaders look to hire the best person for the job, race or ethnicity be damned. It wouldn't be very comforting to go into major surgery with a doctor who was hired because of DEI, even if better candidates were passed over because of the initiative.
If you're saying people are being passed over because of their sex, race, or ethnicity, there are ample existing laws on the books to bring action against those practicing discriminatory behavior.
DEI is dying and good riddance.
Any company that hopes to succeed is not filtering people out because of their sex, race, or ethnicity. Good workers are good workers. End of story.
Doctors performing major surgery have demonstrated skills and knowledge as they progress through various stages of their careers to get to that point. No one is hiring an unlicensed surgeon. So it is a poor example at best.
Apple certainly aren’t hiring an unlicensed surgeon any time soon so the poor example is even worse.
My goodness, all the verbal gymnastics here arguing against something as common sense as hiring the most qualified person for the job.
Yes a bunch of nonsense. DEI has always been misguided, it’s clearly going away, and good riddance.
Funny, as nearly every writer here at AppleInsider appears to be white! (based on the author photos)… Wesley, resign to make room for a DEI hire! Do the right thing!
What is the definition of “white”? I look white by every definition, but had a half middle eastern / half Eastern European heritage. But I’m a white….minority??
Yeah, that's not how DEI works. Lmao. Wtf
Yeah, it kinda is.
Instead of sharing a chart that was posted by End Wokeness out of context, you could read the actual reports they are from. Funny enough, even with this trend, the makeup of the United States workforce top to bottom was still predominantly white. It barely moved the needle. But it was a move in the right direction, at least that is until all of the companies from this study laid off large swaths of their workforce shortly after, which predominantly affected the people of color added to the workforce.
But you wouldn't know that because you saw a chart posted out of context by a bigoted X account and figured that was all the information you needed.
What about some basic math? 204 million white people in the US work force versus 35 million Black, 17 million Asian, and 49 million Hispanic. Even if every minority in America was hired there would still be about 100 million jobs to fill. DEI doesn't take white jobs. It's a fallacy invented by bigots.
My goodness, all the verbal gymnastics here arguing against something as common sense as hiring the most qualified person for the job.
Actually good leaders love diversity as it creates room for everyone in to team to lead from the side and show what they capable of.
What a sentence.
Good leaders look to hire the best person for the job, race or ethnicity be damned. It wouldn't be very comforting to go into major surgery with a doctor who was hired because of DEI, even if better candidates were passed over because of the initiative.
If you're saying people are being passed over because of their sex, race, or ethnicity, there are ample existing laws on the books to bring action against those practicing discriminatory behavior.
DEI is dying and good riddance.
Any company that hopes to succeed is not filtering people out because of their sex, race, or ethnicity. Good workers are good workers. End of story.
Saying a doctor hired at a company with a DEI initiative isn't as trustworthy as a doctor hired based on a metric like merit has incredibly racist implications. If you're hired at a company, it is because you are qualified. DEI initiatives do not enable hiring unqualified individuals. That's an incredibly poor argument that just exposes underlying prejudice.
DEI isn't discriminatory. In fact, places without DEI tend to have more discriminatory practices like favoring white men. I like the idea of having hiring managers view two resumes without a name, sex, religion, or any other identifying feature on the record. Just their education and qualifications. After that, they can move on through the hiring process. DEI initiatives theoretically filter applications before they get to the hiring manager to ensure set quotas can be met. It is a fair and balanced system. Generally, seats that need to be filled are labeled as DEI before applications are even accepted, that way generally it isn't white people competing against a DEI seat.
Many of the people saying DEI shouldn't exist don't seem to even know what it is like or how different companies approach it. They always seem to assume if a white person is going against a person of color at a DEI practicing company, that they'll always choose the person of color. It just isn't how it works.
If we didn't build the modern world with systemic racism and sexism in place, DEI wouldn't be necessary. But we don't live in that world. Without DEI, we remove an opportunity to have a more diverse, more intelligent, and more productive workforce. All the evidence shows as much. There isn't a single credible piece of evidence out there that suggests DEI is harmful or discriminatory.
Who said that LGBTQ or minorities cannot be qualified? How about hiring the brightest, the best and most talented without regard to their skin color, their plumbing or things that have absolutely nothing to do with things unrelated to the job? Hire by merit, that's how Apple got out of the garage.
Funny how “merit” wasn’t important when systematically refusing to hire certain genders and ethnicities was de rigeur. There was no meritocracy then. Now, as soon as anyone talks about systematically extending opportunities to the same people who were previously systematically excluded, we hear how there must be a meritocracy. There’s not much merit in that.
Agreed. The way to fight hate, is with more hate!
DEI is literally the opposite of hate. Hate is exclusion. Inclusion is literally what the I stands for. Increasing the recruitment pool almost always yields stronger teams.
Favoring one group or groups over another group is inherently exclusionary to the latter group. Thus, by your definition, DEI is hateful (which is obvious).
You don’t seem to know what the definition of “definition” is.
Taking down the “whites only” signs in a public high school and escorting black kids in to assure they get the same books and same teachers as the white kids is not “favoring one group or groups over another group.” It is enforcing the opposite.
Nor is it “favoring” the black kids in that high school to recognize that the deficiencies of the separate-and-unequal jr high and elementary schools they’d been to prior to desegregation means they may need extra assistance to catch up to their white peers who’d always gotten the new books and better facilities.
Yes, segregation is officially over (though taxpayer funded school voucher initiatives are working hard to restore it), but the unequal treatment continues to this day, and every initiative to change that, from the workplace all the way back to pre-school is met with opposition seeking to retrench the status quo while euphemistically relabeling it as a meritocracy.
It’s just another version of Jim Crow. Remember ol’ Jim? He had a bit of a passive aggressive vibe. “Sure, you can vote, but first you have to correctly tell me how many jelly beans are in this jar.”
Now it’s “Sure, you can compete for jobs in our meritocracy, but first you have to get an education after we’ve sucked the money out of public schools for these new ‘choice vouchers’ that you can’t use because you don’t have transportation to our private schools on the other side of town, and they won’t take a voucher as full tuition anyway. Also, you’d have to apply and be accepted, and clearly you’re unqualified. And don’t you dare accuse us of discrimination, because you can’t prove it. We’ve outlawed collecting demographic info on our admissions, because that would be ‘racist.’ ”
Looks like you've spent a ton of effort asswaging your cognitive dissonance rather than looking objectively at this issue, turning all your positions into unfixable knots. The people pushing DEI are the same ones 'outlawing' demographic info. We spend more money on education for much poorer results relative to other nations. Vouchers don't work because.. transportation? C'mon. Nobody wants to say the "p" word when it comes to education: parents. It's funny how you take the agency away from POC by attributing all of the inequity purely to external factors. It's not a healthy or productive way to deal with this issue. But, people would rather keep the status quo then feel a bit uncomfortable, which, as someone who spent 10 years helping (primarily) POC kids heal from emotional trauma, is disheartening.
A school voucher for a private school across town is useless to a student who cannot get to the school. Public schools provide free school buses for this purpose unless the school is so close they can walk to it. Requiring the voucher to pay the cost of transportation to the “choice” school would only be keeping minimum parity with the public option. Also, if public schools are so over-funded, then the voucher carrying a given student’s allotment should be more than enough to cover tuition at the much more efficient private schools, but yet it isn’t even close. Vouchers are not about school choice and “the benefits of competition.” They are about re-segregation by leaving the “less desirable” kids behind at separate and unequal schools.
As far as “agency” and external factors, I figure after five centuries of persistently crapping on a given population, maybe it wouldn’t be too terribly patronizing to try to at least stop doing that before giving the parents of that population’s newest generation a firm lecture about bootstraps.
You can thank Tim Cook’s “donation” to the inauguration for shareholders being extra emboldened.
More likely — you can thank Cook’s personal donation for giving Apple the space to stick with their DEI policy.
This. Cook took the bullet to keep Apple as unrestricted as possible, and not saddle the company with the complicity of supporting Trump. Nobody seems to understand this. Or I missed one or two posts pointing this out.
As unfortunate is this is, this is not tribute to the Grifter in Chief but extortion paid to keep a company viable. Where as some payees have probably done so because they support the GiC most have paid because they understand the grief their company could suffer and the hands of a manic how is arguably the most powerful person in the world, short of full-blown dictators he admires. That's extortion. Protection money pure and simple. Calling Cook Tim Apple was the very first sign of trouble for Apple, to us the unwashed masses.
The GiC has promised favoritism to oil companies who donate $1B to his war chest. That's bribery as it's voluntarily. It the past these monies would have gone to lobbyists not POTUS. Now, in either case the middle man takes a back seat.
How many posters who decry Cook's action own Apple products. How many of them would whine when Apple suffered at the tiny Hands of Trumpp and import tariffs either restricting the availability of product or increasing the price of same? Would they blame the GiC? Nah. They'd blame Cook for not capitulating.
When Trump shows over the next for years that his policies offered no restriction on free enterprise and we the people didn't have any inflation increases and were better off than during Biden, then I'll stand corrected that Cook failed in his position as CEO. But I won't because none of that will have happened. Unless you're a 1%er who the convict approves of.
So many of these posts are discussing equality, equity, righting past wrongs, and many other noble ideals. However, all of these posts are ignoring the actual topic which concerns DEI programs at companies.
Are DEI programs effective? I would challenge anyone to provide one single study that proves they cause more good than harm. I can provide dozens of references to support the opposite claim that they do far more harm than good.
So many of these posts are discussing equality, equity, righting past wrongs, and many other noble ideals. However, all of these posts are ignoring the actual topic which concerns DEI programs at companies.
Are DEI programs effective? I would challenge anyone to provide one single study that proves they cause more good than harm. I can provide dozens of references to support the opposite claim that they do far more harm than good.
So many of these posts are discussing equality, equity, righting past wrongs, and many other noble ideals. However, all of these posts are ignoring the actual topic which concerns DEI programs at companies.
Are DEI programs effective? I would challenge anyone to provide one single study that proves they cause more good than harm. I can provide dozens of references to support the opposite claim that they do far more harm than good.
Literally the first item in my search results:
“This is the critical finding of the whole study. While DEI strategies might yield positive results to an organization's diverse makeup and inclusive culture, mature DEI strategies have a concrete and positive impact on the business.”
So many of these posts are discussing equality, equity, righting past wrongs, and many other noble ideals. However, all of these posts are ignoring the actual topic which concerns DEI programs at companies.
Are DEI programs effective? I would challenge anyone to provide one single study that proves they cause more good than harm. I can provide dozens of references to support the opposite claim that they do far more harm than good.
Literally the first item in my search results:
“This is the critical finding of the whole study. While DEI strategies might yield positive results to an organization's diverse makeup and inclusive culture, mature DEI strategies have a concrete and positive impact on the business.”
You know you’re in for a treat when a self-described DEI consultant pens an article proclaiming the business benefits of—surprise!—more DEI consulting. Carolina Milanesi’s Forbes piece might as well be titled “Why You Need to Send Me a Check Right Now.” Here are a few glaring weaknesses:
1. Where’s the Data? For an article about “business impact,” she relies on vague assertions more than concrete evidence. Statements like “companies that invest in DEI see improvements in innovation” lack rigorous data to show any real cause and effect.
2. Self-Interest She’s part of the DEI consulting industry, so she has a personal stake in pushing businesses to invest in more DEI. It’s like a raincoat vendor insisting monsoons are coming.
3. Overgeneralizations She treats DEI as a universal cure-all without acknowledging that in some cases, DEI policies can backfire, cause resentment, or invite legal trouble—issues she conveniently sidesteps.
4. Cherry-Picked Success Stories We hear about one or two alleged triumphs but never about failures or unintended consequences. Where’s the data on programs that triggered reverse discrimination lawsuits or harmed workplace morale?
5. Buzzwords, Not Substance Terms like “innovation” and “growth” are tossed around, but there’s no deep dive into how, specifically, DEI drives these outcomes. It reads more like a sales pitch than a thorough analysis.
6. No Counterarguments Truly robust pieces anticipate pushback and tackle it head-on. Milanesi glosses over controversies around DEI mandates, which does little to strengthen her position.
7. The “DEI Will Save the World” Mantra She implies that embracing DEI solves every organizational woe. Yet real-life examples abound of ham-fisted diversity campaigns leading to groupthink, tokenism, or even lawsuits.
Overall, her article seems more like a pitch for DEI consulting services than a balanced look at the pros and cons. If the takeaway is “Pay for DEI or watch your company crumble,” the reader would be wise to dig deeper before buying in.
Dozens was hyperbole but here are a few:
1. Shortcomings in DEI Training
Claim: Mandatory DEI training is often costly and ineffective.
Why Diversity Programs Fail (Harvard Business Review, 2016) Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev found that most diversity training programs do not change attitudes or improve outcomes long-term. Some can reinforce stereotypes or prompt backlash.
Does Diversity Training Work? (Elizabeth Levy Paluck, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2009) Experimental evidence shows that one-shot diversity training sessions have minimal impact on implicit biases and can spark resistance rather than empathy.
DEI Training: Harmful, Phony, And Expensive (Rod Dreher, The American Conservative, 2023) Dreher criticizes corporate DEI sessions for oversimplifying complex human interactions, often producing resentment instead of unity.
2. Potential for Reverse Discrimination and Legal Exposure
Claim: Ill-conceived DEI programs can trigger lawsuits and unintended forms of discrimination.
Diversity matters: the four scary legal risks hiding in your DEI program (Fortt, Conley, & Alkhas, Reuters, 2023) This article outlines how programs that favor certain demographics can violate anti-discrimination laws, exposing companies to legal peril and reputational damage.
7 Ways Your DEI Initiatives Are Harming Your Company and How To Resolve It (Brian Dapelo, LinkedIn Pulse, 2023) Highlights that forcing diversity quotas without proper checks can lead to new forms of workplace inequity, ironically eroding trust among employees.
3. Cult-Like or Illiberal Dynamics
Claim: In some cases, DEI fosters an environment of conformity and ostracizes dissent.
Opinion | Free speech on campus is another casualty of war (Fareed Zakaria, The Washington Post, 2023) Warns that, under DEI banners, universities sometimes restrict open discourse or cancel events if they diverge from a sanctioned viewpoint.
The Silencing of Heather Mac Donald (Multiple media outlets, 2017) Demonstrates how certain academic communities have disinvited speakers who challenge parts of the DEI narrative, exemplifying how groupthink can stifle debate.
Dangers of the Conventional DEI Initiatives (Dr. Ted Sun, Transcontinental University) Argues that quota-driven DEI policies ignore deep-seated biases and inadvertently intensify divisions, rather than fostering true dialogue.
4. Superficial “Check-the-Box” Approaches
Claim: Many DEI initiatives focus on optics—hitting numeric diversity targets—rather than addressing systemic root causes.
The Failure of the DEI-Industrial Complex (Harvard Business Review, 2022) Critiques the expensive, top-down model of DEI that rarely measures real improvement in inclusion or retention.
Diversity Inc. (Pamela Newkirk, Basic Books, 2019) Investigates how major corporations throw money at diversity “magic bullet” solutions, yet racial inequitiesoften remain as stark as ever.
5. Economic and Organizational Inefficiencies
Claim: DEI can misallocate substantial resources with little demonstrable ROI.
Why Diversity Training Doesn’t Work: The Challenge for Industry and Academia (Catherine Hein, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2019) Reveals that many corporate interventions have no measurable positive effect on productivity or retention, casting doubt on the ROI of large-scale DEI spending.
Diversity Wins: How Inclusion Matters (McKinsey & Company, 2020) While widely cited for linking diversity to better financial performance, the report itself admits that correlation does not equal causation—and that poor implementation can undermine potential gains.
Putting It All Together
Critical Research Gap Milanesi’s article touts broad “innovation” benefits but fails to detail how DEI programs specifically achieve these outcomes—or address the possibility of negative side effects.
Ideological vs. Practical Many DEI arguments rely on moral imperatives, yet skip the pragmatic concerns—such as legal liability, reverse discrimination, and employee pushback—that actual business leaders must face.
One-Size-Fits-All Thinking Real inclusivity requires nuanced approaches, not generic mandates or quotas. Genuine change happens over time, through mentorship, leadership development, and open dialogue—not checklists or forced trainings.
Accountability Is Key Critical voices aren’t advocating against diversity; they challenge superficial, dogmatic, or self-serving approaches. The best solution? Evidence-based reforms that measure real progress, respect individual freedoms, and encourage genuine inclusion rather than lip service.
Recommended References for Further Reading
Dobbin, F. & Kalev, A. (2016). Why Diversity Programs Fail. Harvard Business Review.
Paluck, E. L. (2009). Does Diversity Training Work?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
Fortt, S. E., Conley, D., & Alkhas, N. (2023). Diversity matters: the four scary legal risks hiding in your DEI program. Reuters.
Dapelo, B. (2023). 7 ways your DEI initiatives are harming your company and how to resolve it. LinkedIn Pulse.
Sun, T. (n.d.). Dangers of the Conventional DEI Initiatives. Transcontinental University.
Newkirk, P. (2019). Diversity Inc. Basic Books.
Harvard Business Review. (2022). The Failure of the DEI-Industrial Complex.
Zakaria, F. (2023). Opinion | Free speech on campus is another casualty of war. The Washington Post.
In sum, there is a legitimate debate over how best to achieve genuine inclusivity. Data and case studies demonstrate that poorly executed DEI can do more harm than good—creating legal headaches, fostering resentment, and entrenching stereotypes. Rather than uncritically accepting calls for more DEI consulting, leaders should scrutinize which measures truly yield lasting, positive outcomes, ensuring their time and resources bolster real equity rather than merely feeding an industry echo chamber.
Comments
Unfortunately for women, especially Black women, DEI programs are mostly all talk, little action. They're forced to work in institutions that give them greater access to hiring, but lack frameworks to mentor, promote and guide them within increasingly hostile environments. Worse is the folding of these programs at the earliest hint of opposition. Then people like to pat themselves on the back and say "Well, at least we tried."
It's a lose-lose situation for Black people and other persons of color, and LGBTQ+ communities. They're better off remaining isolated and creating their own opportunities away from the spotlight.
DEI initiatives, though ostensibly designed to promote fairness and inclusivity, often yield unintended consequences that exacerbate the very disparities they aim to address. A study published in the American Sociological Review found that diversity training programs are largely ineffective, showing no measurable improvement in workplace equality. These programs often emphasize superficial markers of diversity, such as race or gender, over deeper qualities like merit and skill.
Rather than fostering harmony, DEI initiatives frequently sow division. A report revealed that mandatory DEI training sessions can create resentment among employees, leading to increased workplace hostility. In environments where identity politics take precedence over shared goals, innovation falters and morale plummets.
The legal ramifications of DEI policies cannot be ignored. The 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision banning affirmative action in college admissions underscores the increasing scrutiny of race-conscious policies. Companies like Meta and Amazon have scaled back their DEI programs, citing concerns over potential litigation and compliance risks. Financially, DEI initiatives divert significant resources from core business functions. Apple, a company renowned for its groundbreaking innovations, could better allocate these funds to research and development, ensuring its continued leadership in the tech industry.
Real-world examples illustrate the dangers of prioritizing DEI over meritocracy. At a leading tech company, aggressive diversity hiring quotas led to the recruitment of underqualified candidates, resulting in plummeting team performance and soaring employee turnover. Another troubling case involves a prestigious university that replaced merit-based scholarships with need-based awards aligned with DEI principles, alienating top-performing students and lowering academic standards.
One of the most insidious aspects of DEI is its tendency to stifle dissent. Critics who question the efficacy or morality of these initiatives often face professional ostracism or even termination. The canceled lecture of geophysicist Dorian Abbot at MIT is a stark example of this trend. This enforced conformity not only suppresses intellectual diversity but also discourages the critical debates essential for progress.
Beyond individual anecdotes, the broader cultural and economic implications of DEI warrant serious consideration. Studies have shown that DEI programs can reinforce stereotypes by overemphasizing group identities, rather than promoting individual achievement. Economically, poorly implemented DEI initiatives can lead to reduced productivity, as teams bogged down by ideological training sessions and identity-driven quotas struggle to meet performance goals.
Apple’s success has always been rooted in a commitment to meritocracy and excellence. By voting to phase out DEI initiatives, shareholders have the opportunity to reaffirm these principles. This decision is not about rejecting diversity but about embracing it in its most authentic form—as the natural result of a culture that rewards talent, creativity, and hard work. The company’s future depends on fostering an environment where the best ideas can flourish, free from the constraints of divisive policies.
DEI initiatives represent a misguided approach to addressing societal inequities, one that often does more harm than good. Apple’s shareholders have a unique opportunity to lead by example, rejecting these flawed programs and charting a path that prioritizes merit, innovation, and unity. Let us choose a future where excellence is the standard, and diversity emerges naturally from a shared commitment to fairness and opportunity.
It’s just another version of Jim Crow. Remember ol’ Jim? He had a bit of a passive aggressive vibe. “Sure, you can vote, but first you have to correctly tell me how many jelly beans are in this jar.”
Now it’s “Sure, you can compete for jobs in our meritocracy, but first you have to get an education after we’ve sucked the money out of public schools for these new ‘choice vouchers’ that you can’t use because you don’t have transportation to our private schools on the other side of town, and they won’t take a voucher as full tuition anyway. Also, you’d have to apply and be accepted, and clearly you’re unqualified. And don’t you dare accuse us of discrimination, because you can’t prove it. We’ve outlawed collecting demographic info on our admissions, because that would be ‘racist.’ ”
I personally believe that a lot of people, mostly those outside of this forum, don't fully understand the differences between Equity and Equality. When viewed in the context of the current situation, where disparities exist for historical reasons, a lot of people embrace equality as the gold standard with no concern about equity. Treating everyone the same and affording the same treatment and opportunity to everyone sounds fair. Equal opportunity sounds like a great thing. Only hire the best and brightest and most qualified without regard to any individual differences that do not directly apply to the position.
That's nirvana, a perfect solution, but only where inequities no longer exist. Equality is great, but it's only applicable where you have equity. Realistically, inequities have always existed around certain individual conditions like wealth, power, influence, lucky sperm club, etc. If your dad just bankrolled a new campus building at Harvard, there's probably a very good chance you're going to get into Harvard even if it's through a ping-pong scholarship if all the legacy admissions are already filled. Inherent traits that exist at a human level when they are born into the world should not be sources of inequity.
The intention of programs like DEI are to address inequities - even in the face of causing inequalities. For anyone on the losing end of the inequality calculus it will obviously view inequality as an injustice. But if you and society believe that true (or more inclusive) equality cannot be achieved until inequities are dealt with, it is a price to be paid today for the sins of our forebearers. No matter how you look at solving the problem, someone is going to feel like they're getting screwed. Those who want equality over all else and want to put away the past because they as individuals had no influence over it feel screwed. Those who are affected by existing inequities due to things they have no control over feel like they are never going to be on level ground with those who are unaffected.
Life is not fair, but the reasons behind the unfairness should be resolved if it is within our power to do so, in my opinion. At the very least we should be listening to both sides without trying to jam our opinions down other people's throats. As a country we have always made great human and financial sacrifices in an attempt to rectify situations that have surfaced far beyond our own shores. Why we don't have the same resolve to rectify things at home when the price to be paid is so much less is something I will never understand.
Good leaders look to hire the best person for the job, race or ethnicity be damned. It wouldn't be very comforting to go into major surgery with a doctor who was hired because of DEI, even if better candidates were passed over because of the initiative.
If you're saying people are being passed over because of their sex, race, or ethnicity, there are ample existing laws on the books to bring action against those practicing discriminatory behavior.
DEI is dying and good riddance.
Any company that hopes to succeed is not filtering people out because of their sex, race, or ethnicity. Good workers are good workers. End of story.
But you wouldn't know that because you saw a chart posted out of context by a bigoted X account and figured that was all the information you needed.
As unfortunate is this is, this is not tribute to the Grifter in Chief but extortion paid to keep a company viable. Where as some payees have probably done so because they support the GiC most have paid because they understand the grief their company could suffer and the hands of a manic how is arguably the most powerful person in the world, short of full-blown dictators he admires. That's extortion. Protection money pure and simple. Calling Cook Tim Apple was the very first sign of trouble for Apple, to us the unwashed masses.
The GiC has promised favoritism to oil companies who donate $1B to his war chest. That's bribery as it's voluntarily. It the past these monies would have gone to lobbyists not POTUS. Now, in either case the middle man takes a back seat.
How many posters who decry Cook's action own Apple products. How many of them would whine when Apple suffered at the tiny Hands of Trumpp and import tariffs either restricting the availability of product or increasing the price of same? Would they blame the GiC? Nah. They'd blame Cook for not capitulating.
When Trump shows over the next for years that his policies offered no restriction on free enterprise and we the people didn't have any inflation increases and were better off than during Biden, then I'll stand corrected that Cook failed in his position as CEO. But I won't because none of that will have happened. Unless you're a 1%er who the convict approves of.
Are DEI programs effective? I would challenge anyone to provide one single study that proves they cause more good than harm. I can provide dozens of references to support the opposite claim that they do far more harm than good.
“This is the critical finding of the whole study. While DEI strategies might yield positive results to an organization's diverse makeup and inclusive culture, mature DEI strategies have a concrete and positive impact on the business.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinamilanesi/2023/04/20/the-business-impact-of-diversity-equity-and-inclusion/
You know you’re in for a treat when a self-described DEI consultant pens an article proclaiming the business benefits of—surprise!—more DEI consulting. Carolina Milanesi’s Forbes piece might as well be titled “Why You Need to Send Me a Check Right Now.” Here are a few glaring weaknesses:
1. Where’s the Data?
For an article about “business impact,” she relies on vague assertions more than concrete evidence. Statements like “companies that invest in DEI see improvements in innovation” lack rigorous data to show any real cause and effect.
2. Self-Interest
She’s part of the DEI consulting industry, so she has a personal stake in pushing businesses to invest in more DEI. It’s like a raincoat vendor insisting monsoons are coming.
3. Overgeneralizations
She treats DEI as a universal cure-all without acknowledging that in some cases, DEI policies can backfire, cause resentment, or invite legal trouble—issues she conveniently sidesteps.
4. Cherry-Picked Success Stories
We hear about one or two alleged triumphs but never about failures or unintended consequences. Where’s the data on programs that triggered reverse discrimination lawsuits or harmed workplace morale?
5. Buzzwords, Not Substance
Terms like “innovation” and “growth” are tossed around, but there’s no deep dive into how, specifically, DEI drives these outcomes. It reads more like a sales pitch than a thorough analysis.
6. No Counterarguments
Truly robust pieces anticipate pushback and tackle it head-on. Milanesi glosses over controversies around DEI mandates, which does little to strengthen her position.
7. The “DEI Will Save the World” Mantra
She implies that embracing DEI solves every organizational woe. Yet real-life examples abound of ham-fisted diversity campaigns leading to groupthink, tokenism, or even lawsuits.
Overall, her article seems more like a pitch for DEI consulting services than a balanced look at the pros and cons. If the takeaway is “Pay for DEI or watch your company crumble,” the reader would be wise to dig deeper before buying in.
Dozens was hyperbole but here are a few:
1. Shortcomings in DEI Training
Claim: Mandatory DEI training is often costly and ineffective.
Why Diversity Programs Fail (Harvard Business Review, 2016)
Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev found that most diversity training programs do not change attitudes or improve outcomes long-term. Some can reinforce stereotypes or prompt backlash.
Does Diversity Training Work? (Elizabeth Levy Paluck, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2009)
Experimental evidence shows that one-shot diversity training sessions have minimal impact on implicit biases and can spark resistance rather than empathy.
DEI Training: Harmful, Phony, And Expensive (Rod Dreher, The American Conservative, 2023)
Dreher criticizes corporate DEI sessions for oversimplifying complex human interactions, often producing resentment instead of unity.
2. Potential for Reverse Discrimination and Legal Exposure
Claim: Ill-conceived DEI programs can trigger lawsuits and unintended forms of discrimination.
Diversity matters: the four scary legal risks hiding in your DEI program (Fortt, Conley, & Alkhas, Reuters, 2023)
This article outlines how programs that favor certain demographics can violate anti-discrimination laws, exposing companies to legal peril and reputational damage.
7 Ways Your DEI Initiatives Are Harming Your Company and How To Resolve It (Brian Dapelo, LinkedIn Pulse, 2023)
Highlights that forcing diversity quotas without proper checks can lead to new forms of workplace inequity, ironically eroding trust among employees.
3. Cult-Like or Illiberal Dynamics
Claim: In some cases, DEI fosters an environment of conformity and ostracizes dissent.
Opinion | Free speech on campus is another casualty of war (Fareed Zakaria, The Washington Post, 2023)
Warns that, under DEI banners, universities sometimes restrict open discourse or cancel events if they diverge from a sanctioned viewpoint.
The Silencing of Heather Mac Donald (Multiple media outlets, 2017)
Demonstrates how certain academic communities have disinvited speakers who challenge parts of the DEI narrative, exemplifying how groupthink can stifle debate.
Dangers of the Conventional DEI Initiatives (Dr. Ted Sun, Transcontinental University)
Argues that quota-driven DEI policies ignore deep-seated biases and inadvertently intensify divisions, rather than fostering true dialogue.
4. Superficial “Check-the-Box” Approaches
Claim: Many DEI initiatives focus on optics—hitting numeric diversity targets—rather than addressing systemic root causes.
The Failure of the DEI-Industrial Complex (Harvard Business Review, 2022)
Critiques the expensive, top-down model of DEI that rarely measures real improvement in inclusion or retention.
Diversity Inc. (Pamela Newkirk, Basic Books, 2019)
Investigates how major corporations throw money at diversity “magic bullet” solutions, yet racial inequitiesoften remain as stark as ever.
5. Economic and Organizational Inefficiencies
Claim: DEI can misallocate substantial resources with little demonstrable ROI.
Why Diversity Training Doesn’t Work: The Challenge for Industry and Academia (Catherine Hein, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2019)
Reveals that many corporate interventions have no measurable positive effect on productivity or retention, casting doubt on the ROI of large-scale DEI spending.
Diversity Wins: How Inclusion Matters (McKinsey & Company, 2020)
While widely cited for linking diversity to better financial performance, the report itself admits that correlation does not equal causation—and that poor implementation can undermine potential gains.
Putting It All Together
Critical Research Gap
Milanesi’s article touts broad “innovation” benefits but fails to detail how DEI programs specifically achieve these outcomes—or address the possibility of negative side effects.
Ideological vs. Practical
Many DEI arguments rely on moral imperatives, yet skip the pragmatic concerns—such as legal liability, reverse discrimination, and employee pushback—that actual business leaders must face.
One-Size-Fits-All Thinking
Real inclusivity requires nuanced approaches, not generic mandates or quotas. Genuine change happens over time, through mentorship, leadership development, and open dialogue—not checklists or forced trainings.
Accountability Is Key
Critical voices aren’t advocating against diversity; they challenge superficial, dogmatic, or self-serving approaches. The best solution? Evidence-based reforms that measure real progress, respect individual freedoms, and encourage genuine inclusion rather than lip service.
Recommended References for Further Reading
In sum, there is a legitimate debate over how best to achieve genuine inclusivity. Data and case studies demonstrate that poorly executed DEI can do more harm than good—creating legal headaches, fostering resentment, and entrenching stereotypes. Rather than uncritically accepting calls for more DEI consulting, leaders should scrutinize which measures truly yield lasting, positive outcomes, ensuring their time and resources bolster real equity rather than merely feeding an industry echo chamber.