Who knew that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) — three perfectly acceptable-sounding words — could end up being so politically divisive? President Trump, with the stroke of a pen, is ordering the reversal of DEI efforts across all federal agencies. Many are predicting legal actions to ensure federal DEI initiatives remain in place. How did Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion become so controversial? Let’s take them one at a time.

Diversity, for the sake of federal hiring and promotion policy, means including people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds, genders, and sexual orientation/ identities. This seems all well and good but, are those the things that should be used when making a hiring decision?

When the FAA hires air traffic controllers, what do pilots, crew, and passengers value as the most important characteristics? I would assume an excellent air traffic controller candidate would be focused, high on conscientiousness, able to multi-task, and capable of maintaining a high level of performance under stressful work conditions. If you find an individual that possesses these highly desired attributes, does it really matter how much melanin is in their skin, if they grew up in poverty, or are involved in a same-sex relationship? If those critical work attributes are missing, can those deficiencies be overlooked because the candidate is of an underrepresented racial/ethnic/sexual orientation or identity class? I would hope that talent, no matter how it presents itself, is most valued by our society.

Most homeowners want their neighbors to maintain their homes and yards in a manner that increases neighborhood purchase prices. If your neighbor is the same skin color as you but allows their home to fall into disrepair — such that it negatively impacts the market value of your property — is that better than living next to someone of a different skin color but whose home increases your property value? Of course not. When it comes to home values, we’re looking for uniformity: A neighborhood of homeowners that care for their property and families in a way that increases market values. When the For Sale sign goes up in your yard, it’s the surrounding curb appeal that’s paramount.

Equity most often references stakeholder value. In DEI, equity refers to a proportional distribution of outcomes. Today, many well-meaning observers claim disparate outcomes are automatic proof of discrimination, but it’s obviously not. I’m from a family of five kids. My wife grew up in a family of six kids. There isn’t a proportional distribution of outcomes among siblings raised under the same roof by the same parents, let alone among individuals across an entire society. To think private or public organizations can manage “equitable” outcomes, i.e., socialism, reflects a complete unawareness of human nature. NOTE: Successful socialism requires government actions that most socialists find unacceptable.

Finally, inclusion is the admirable objective of providing “equal” access to individuals that might otherwise be marginalized or excluded. Relative to occupational success, this is like Diversity. Again, one would hope that talent is in such demand that it will be swooped-up regardless of how it is packaged. Discrimination is expensive. Those that persist in irrational discrimination will, and should, pay a heavy price. Opening society to those with mental or physical disabilities has seen great advances through the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) signed by President George H.W. Bush. Accommodating every form of disability in every instance is unreasonable. Making workplaces and public accommodation more, well, accommodating, is a good thing.

DEI, and its intentions, are honorable. Intentions, however, are often very different from outcomes. If DEI results in lowering standards, endangering the general public, or perverting hiring standards to the point of penalizing merit, then we have a problem. It is always best when governments allow private entities to succeed or fail on their own. It is always best when government hiring practices are focused on securing the biggest possible bang for taxpayer dollars. Social engineering intentions, that do not deliver measurable outcome improvements, must be abandoned.

State Rep. Mark Tisdel, R-Rochester Hills represents Michigan House District 55, which includes the cities of Rochester and Rochester Hills, and part of Oakland Township. You can reach him by calling 517-373-1792 or by sending an email to [email protected]