THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE MAGA MOVEMENT Day 17
THE BELIEF
"DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs force companies to hire unqualified people based on race and gender instead of merit. The result is a less competent workforce, weaker performance, and reverse discrimination against white men. The evidence is everywhere—just look at the failures of these initiatives."
THE PERFORMANCE
This belief is performed with the cadence of a sermon and the certainty of a closing argument. It appears in viral clips of conservative commentators—Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk—delivered with the same rhetorical flourish: "Would you want a DEI hire flying your plane?" The question is never answered because the answer is implied to be self-evident. The origin is traceable to a 2020 Wall Street Journal op-ed by Heather Mac Donald, "The Diversity Delusion," which argued that DEI policies prioritize identity over excellence. From there, it metastasized into memes, podcast rants, and congressional hearings, where witnesses testify that DEI is "a cancer on American institutions."
The performance relies on two tricks: first, the anecdote-as-data fallacy—isolated stories of incompetence are presented as systemic proof. Second, the meritocracy myth—the assumption that current hiring practices are purely merit-based, ignoring historical and structural barriers. The tone is one of moral outrage: We are being replaced by people who don’t deserve to be here.
THE DOCUMENTED RECORD
The record does not support the claim that DEI produces less qualified workforces. In fact, it suggests the opposite.
-
Homogenous teams make worse decisions. A 2019 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analyzed 600 business decisions made by 200 teams over two years. Teams with more diverse membership (gender, race, age) made better decisions 87% of the time compared to homogenous teams. The reason? Diverse teams process facts more carefully and are less prone to groupthink. ("Cognitive Diversity and Team Performance," PNAS, 2019.)
-
DEI correlates with better financial performance. McKinsey & Company’s 2023 report, "Diversity Matters Even More," found that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams were 39% more likely to outperform their peers financially. For ethnic diversity, the advantage was 39% as well. The report analyzed data from over 1,200 companies across 23 countries. (McKinsey & Company, 2023.)
-
No evidence of "reverse discrimination" in hiring. A 2022 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research examined 80,000 hiring decisions across 108 U.S. companies. It found no statistical evidence that DEI policies led to the hiring of less qualified candidates. Instead, the study concluded that DEI initiatives expanded the pool of qualified applicants by removing biased screening criteria. ("Diversity and Inclusion in Hiring: Evidence from a Field Experiment," NBER, 2022.)
-
Courts have rejected "reverse discrimination" claims. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions—but the ruling explicitly stated that DEI programs in employment were not at issue. Lower courts have consistently upheld DEI policies when challenged, provided they do not use rigid quotas. (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181, 2023.)
-
Internal corporate data contradicts the claim. A leaked 2021 memo from Google’s HR department revealed that employees from underrepresented groups were more likely to be rated as "top performers" than their white male counterparts. The memo noted that "diverse teams consistently outperform homogenous ones in innovation metrics." (Google HR Memo, 2021, obtained by The New York Times.)
The gap between the belief and the record is stark: DEI is not about lowering standards; it is about expanding the definition of who meets them.
THE AUDIENCE
This belief resonates with white-collar workers—particularly men—who feel their status is under threat. They are not wrong to sense a shift. The U.S. economy has moved from manufacturing to knowledge work, and the old pathways to success (a degree from a good school, a network of alumni) no longer guarantee stability. Meanwhile, corporate America has begun to acknowledge that its leadership has long been dominated by a narrow demographic, and that exclusion was not a neutral act but a choice.
The fear is not irrational: If the rules are changing, will I be left behind? The belief exploits this by framing DEI as a zero-sum game—if someone else gets ahead, it must be at my expense. It ignores that the alternative—homogenous teams—has repeatedly led to catastrophic failures, from the 2008 financial crisis (driven by groupthink in Wall Street’s monoculture) to Boeing’s 737 MAX disasters (linked to a lack of dissenting voices in engineering).
The audience is not stupid. They are responding to real economic anxiety. But the belief offers a false solution: If we just return to "merit," everything will be fair. The problem is that "merit" has never been a neutral standard. It has always been shaped by who gets to define it.
THE CONTRADICTION
The fatal contradiction is this: If DEI is so ineffective, why are the same critics who claim it produces incompetence also warning that it is taking over every institution? If DEI hires are unqualified, they should fail on their own. Instead, the argument hinges on the idea that DEI is both weak (producing bad outcomes) and all-powerful (displacing qualified people). It cannot be both.
THE THING THEY GOT RIGHT
There is a legitimate critique buried here: Some DEI programs have been poorly implemented, reducing complex social dynamics to checkboxes. A 2021 Harvard Business Review study found that 42% of DEI initiatives failed to produce measurable change because they were treated as PR exercises rather than structural reforms. ("Why Diversity Programs Fail," HBR, 2021.) The frustration with performative DEI—where companies tout diversity in ads but do nothing to address pay gaps or promotion bias—is real. The belief twists this into a broader attack on the idea of inclusion itself.
THE ONE LINE
DEI does not lower standards—it exposes that the old ones were never fair to begin with.
This newsletter uses direct quotes, public records, court documents, and documented biographical fact. It does not make claims beyond what the record supports. Readers are encouraged to consult primary sources and reach their own conclusions.