The Misguided Defence of Equity

While on my quest to unapologetically reintroduce the forgotten concept of Meritocracy to clients, it was interesting to see that SHRM’s decision to remove equity from its focus has ignited controversy. (click image to review the article)

DEI advocates argue that without equity, organizations will regress, allowing past injustices to persist. However, in my opinion this line of thinking is both misguided and counterproductive. 

The argument presented in the article is fundamentally flawed in its understanding of what true fairness and equity mean in a meritocratic society. The notion that equity is synonymous with fairness is misleading. 

Equity, in its current usage within DEI frameworks, attempts to manipulate outcomes to ensure that everyone ends up at the same place, regardless of effort, talent, or merit. This approach is inherently unfair because it assumes that differences in outcomes are always the result of systemic barriers rather than individual choices, abilities, or ambitions.

As my favourite economist Thomas Sowell has argued, "The quest for cosmic justice"—which includes the pursuit of equity in outcomes—"often leads to policies that are both unjust and counterproductive". 

Sowell points out that when society focuses on equalizing outcomes rather than opportunities, it inevitably sacrifices the very principles of fairness and individual responsibility that are essential to a free and prosperous society . 

The focus should instead be on removing barriers to opportunity, allowing everyone to compete on an equal footing based on their abilities and efforts.

The assumption that diversity and inclusion cannot thrive without an emphasis on equity is unsubstantiated. 

For instance, a study (Why Diversity Programs Fail) published in the same Harvard Business Review found that companies emphasizing merit and individual performance over enforced equity achieved higher levels of employee engagement and satisfaction . 

The article also warns that without equity, organizations might adopt identity-blind policies, which allegedly increases discrimination. However, this claim overlooks the reality that identity-blind policies are, in fact, the fairest approach. These policies ensure that individuals are judged based on their qualifications, skills, and work ethic, rather than their identity. 

Also, a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research (Diversity and Inclusion Policies and Their Effects on Firm Performance) found that organizations with identity-blind hiring processes had more diverse and competent workforces compared to those with identity-conscious policies .

Progress should not be measured by the degree to which we enforce equal outcomes but by how we empower individuals to achieve their potential based on their merits. 

By refocusing on merit, we can build organizations where everyone has a fair chance to succeed based on their abilities and efforts, not their identity.