
Opinion by Peter J. Santos for Kandit News & Views
Diversity hire, equity hire, or DEI hire, are disparaging and controversial labels for persons from underrepresented groups, which are, according to this label, assumed to be less qualified and have supposedly received preferential treatment due to DEI policies.
The truth is DEI policy emerged from Affirmative action in the United States. Affirmative action was a solution to the prevalent disparity in how people were treated in various settings, because of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or national origin.
The legal term “affirmative action” was first used in “Executive Order No. 10925,” signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961, which included a provision that government contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly] during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin” It was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination. In September 1965, President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to “hire without regard to race, religion and national origin” and “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”
Today, with the shift in political majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency, DEI has been harshly criticized and maligned as improper, unconstitutional, and “reverse discrimination” that has harmed a large number of well qualified people. The U.S. Supreme Court, now with a majority of conservative Justices including the Chief Justice, have dealt blows against affirmative action.
Let’s think critically and objectively about DEI and what eliminating DEI would mean. Let’s recall the history of and reality of “Affirmative Action” and it’s goals. In order to do this, we must first dispel the rhetoric.
Affirmative Action and DEI does not put unqualified people in positions over people who are qualified. The reality is that people who were less qualified were being selected over more qualified people because of race and/or gender. Affirmative Action emerged to cure this. Also, the lack of diversity in certain jobs and positions were grossly disproportionate to the demographic make-up of communities, of qualified candidates. For instance, a community that had a 60 percent to 40 percent ratio of qualified Caucasians and qualified African Americans, but the jobs were filled by 95 percent Caucasians, Affirmative Action was necessary to correct this imbalanced disparity. Or if the make-up of employees were more representative of the demographic make-up, but the supervisory positions were 99 percent Caucasian, then Affirmative Action was necessary to correct this imbalance.
Remember, Affirmative Action and DEI, is only required when there is disparity. So eliminating Affirmative Action and DEI would allow the bad practices of the past to flourish.
So why are people so staunchly against Affirmative Action and DEI? First and foremost, there are some lies and misconceptions about Affirmative Action and DEI and therefore demagogues use political rhetoric to gain popularity and support. Second, there are bad and disingenuous policies that have been implemented in the name of Affirmative Action and DEI. Third, there are good policies that have been incorrectly implemented.
Yes, there are people who have been harmed, purportedly under Affirmative Action and DEI, but if we really scrutinize the facts and circumstances of those cases, if Affirmative Action and DEI policies had been correctly crafted and correctly implemented, those harms would not have resulted. So in sum, true Affirmative Action and DEI do not cause harm and in fact prevents harm. Thus, doing away with Affirmative Action and DEI will allow the harms of he past to re-occur. Affirmative Action and DEI policies and practices need to be corrected but not eliminated. It’s throwing out the baby with the bath water.
_____
Peter J. Santos is a criminal defense attorney, former prosecutor, combat veteran, native of Agat, and resident of Yigo.
2 Comments
Anonymous
01/23/2025 at 9:58 PM
There are plenty of examples where race based “classifications” are improperly applied in other settings that need to be eliminated as well. In Hawaii (using that location as my example) businesses can apply to be classified as “small disadvantaged” (8A program) and get federal set aside contracts without having to competitively bid, not to mention receive other preferential treatment and federal assistance. The 8A program was originally designed to help small business owners who are socially and economically disavantaged (i.e., minority status). The problem with how that program was applied is that the so called “disadvantaged minorities” in Hawaii (or elsewhere for that matter) actually “gamed” or “played” the program over the years by using loopholes, so in reality 8A was not always “correcting any so called “unfair imbalance” (i.e., Asians outnumber native Hawaiians in Hawaii and are better off economically as just one example, yet Asians were considered eligible for preferential treatment) . I have seen too often how the so called “disadvantaged” are given preference to federal contracts at the expense of, and over those who are actually the real “disadvantaged” minority in a given location. The 8A program was modified by a recent court case (see Ultima Servs. Corp. V. Dept. of Ag.) and new rules were implemented as a result. Applicants to the 8A program must now complete a “social disadvantage narrative” to prove they are actually disadvantaged and not just a member of a specific “race” or “group” (just one of the changes made). Further I might add, that many small businesses or established companies have “gamed the system” using the loophole of listing a woman (usually it’s someones “wife”) as the “fake token” 51% owner of the business to get the “woman owned “federal preference” classification advantage. As far as any type of DEI type programs or “other” preference programs, I would argue they should all be completely banned and outlawed as none of these programs can be applied blindly or fairly no matter what they are trying to so called “correct” or how they are “adjusted” by “changing the language”. As far as DEI specifically, the California wildfires are a perfect example of what happens when you consider “window dressing” type hiring as a priority over and above everything else. Diversity, equity and inclusion appeared or seemed to be a sanctioned form of reverse discrimination or possibly just another political “scheme” to legally hijack taxpayer money and divert it to another “group” to gain “votes” (you think?) All that taxpayer money by the way, might have been better spent elsewhere instead of creating a bunch of useless DEI jobs for a select “few” of the “whatever we are claiming we are” cult. Maybe just take a look at large democrat run U.S. cities as another example if you need further proof of the harm that has been done by various types of preferential based hiring or even “race biased elections” as well? Does anyone really believe that Kamala was qualified to be the next President?
DEI (better known as – Didn’t Earn It).
Merit based hiring (the most qualified) is long overdue (no matter what sex, race, creed or other factor someone claims) and it appears that if you don’t follow that rule of Darwins “evolutionary theory”, you end up with mediocrity and failure which might explain why the United States seemed to have been on an accelerating downward trajectory, especially over the last four years. Just ask Boeing how well DEI worked out for them? Keep that in mind on your next off island flight.
Anonymous
01/25/2025 at 8:31 AM
Peter J. Santos – would you like to carry this conversation further? I would be willing to post additional comments addressing any concerns you may have? Lets discuss this issue further so that any potential voters in Guam can become more informed about your actual positions? I make that same offer to anyone who wants to post their opinion on Kandit News – that includes any dust off your crotch old “has been” hag’s that harbors bird flu carrying falcons on their property. Candidate for MVA Director – indeed (ha,ha, insert eye rolling here). Maybe more like an emeritus cat lover and box wine drinker? Mabel? You must be KRAZY.