Someone out on Facebook recently asked, provocatively, something like "If you are against Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, which one are you against?" They really were hoping to call someone out so as to engender a good old-fashioned left-shaming pile-on where everybody demonstrated their perfect fealty to current progressive standards.
Upon reflection, here in the comfort of my own blog, I am prepared to say that the one that I think is the most problematic is Equity, particularly insofar as Equity forms the conceptual backstop for policy attempts to right historical wrongs. I think it is a concept and term that has been forcibly inserted into discourse too recently to form the basis of a lot of policy or hiring and it is therefore the thing that has pissed the most people off and caused the most blowback.
Which isn't to say that I am not sympathetic to the goals of Equity as a pillar of policy. Our forebearers have done some fucked up shit (and each of us does too in the present, against our best efforts). The legacy of slavery (then lynching, segregation, red-lining) hangs heavily on American society and we struggle to figure out how best to address it. Debate continues as it should on how to rectify its legacy.
But what past wrongs need to be righted? I had buckteeth and was skinny as hell and was bullied as a child and had to overcome that. Beyond having my friends acknowledge they were mean to me (which they do) am I due anything from society? Absolutely not, though I am touched at progress made across generations to better address bullying in schools. What about rural whites who are victimized by the underfunding of their public schools (driven first and foremost by Republicans, to be sure) and decimated by opioid abuse caused, among other things, by rapacious pharmaceutical companies and overprescribing by a medical establishment, really a regulatory failure but also exacerbated by the challenges of keeping drugs from flowing across the border (mostly at monitored checkpoints, not carried by illegal immigrants)? Rural whites have been fucked in their own way, I could make decent argurments for hiring poorly qualified white people from rural backgrounds in the same way we prioritize hiring people of color. In fact, selective colleges and universities do seek geographical diversity that give some weight to kids who have overcome shitty schools in poor rural places, and I think that's a good thing. But I think that probably those admits probably fall under Diversity as much as Equity.
I am not entirely anti-Equity and I certainy wouldn't hesitate to patronize businesses that try to incorporate Equity into their hiring. But I think as a foundatoin for policy it is a little underarticulated and underdigested by the Body Politic, which explains much of the recent blowback.
With all of that said, Equity is certainly a better principle for hiring than cronyism and blind loyalty to a leader. I'd much rather see an Equity tilt to hiring than someone like a Hegseth, Gabbard, RFK Jr, Patel etc. being in positions of power. But, for the record, I also think Lina Khan was probably too junior to be leading an organization the size of the FTC so I also think just being really smart and creative isn't necessrily the way to go when making cabinet-level hires. I think that some of the regulatory initiatives Khan drove explain why so much tech money lined up behind Trump this go round. Watching Ben Horowitz and Marc Andriessen's post election video really drove that home. (Although some of what they said in the video is just flat out wrong and dickheaded)