What’s wrong with us? Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) have become the trinity of hope for a new woke world. What? How can these three coexist?
According to the American Psychological Association, “Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) is a conceptual framework that promotes the fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially populations that have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination because of their background, identity, disability, etc.”
The term EDI has not been around long enough to have a universal label. Other organizations like Wikipedia call it DEI. Nevertheless, the three terms remain the same regardless of the order, and the definition of the trinitarian term remains relatively the same.
What does EDI look like? For one thing it’s all inclusive: “a conceptual framework that promotes the fair treatment and full participation of all people….” Wow! The promotion of “fair treatment” sounds honorable. The “full participation of all people….” All people? Full participation? That’s much more than an academic stretch! Reading this generates images of row upon row and column upon column of goose-stepping soldiers in a massive parade. There are no noticeable differences among the myriad marchers. Where’s the diversity?
Presumably “all people” guarantees diversity just as much as inclusion. But wait! Some of all people are more inclusive than others. Some populations are special: “especially populations that have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination because of their background, identity, disability, etc.” This sounds familiar. Some people in EDI are more special within this conceptual framework than others. They will be especially promoted with fairer treatment to insure everything will become equitable.
Let’s face it, Americans come from a broad range of populations, some of which “have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination because of their background, identity, disability, etc.” For example, if the NBA or NFL were to conform to this conceptual framework, only 14.2% of team members could be Black and 17% of team members would have to be 65 or older. The primary goal of EDI is to make all teams and organizations look like the general population by percentage of demographics. There are no 65-year old white guys playing professional basketball or football.
Wait! Are there other extreme examples of industries in which the vast majority of workers share similar if not identical skills and abilities? If we are going to guarantee equity for any person within the “full population of all people,” we’ll have to have laws that balance the playing field demographically. This conceptional framework cannot work if any meritocracy is considered.
The only solution to make sure the conceptual framework “promotes the fair treatment and full participation of all people” would be to allow any and everyone to identify as qualified to fill any position regardless of merit. Why couldn’t we allow anyone who wants a particular position to fill that position by changing requirements or overestimating the applicant’s skills and abilities to insure he or she would be equally qualified with all others in that same field.
We already have the perfect example of how EDI could change the face of America overnight: the Biden administration! President Biden appointed members of his administration who represent the broadest demographics of any administration in history. He could implement EDI across America with one sweep of his pen.
_______________________________________Daniel L. Gardner is a syndicated columnist who lives in Starkville, MS. You may contact him at PJandMe2@gmail.com.
