The False Promise of DEI: When Diversity Divides Instead of Unites

“DEI isn’t a cure-all and it isn’t a poison. It’s a tool—and it depends how we use it.”

Is DEI expanding opportunities—or unintentionally fueling resentment and division?

In this solo episode of It’s an Inside Job, I unpack the promise and pitfalls of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). I explore where DEI policies strengthen resilience, where they backfire, and how leaders can rethink fairness, pipelines, and trust to create lasting impact.

Key Takeaway Insights and Tools

• DEI’s true purpose is not quotas, but creating pipelines that prepare people for success. Without investing in preparation, resentment festers.
  [13:24]
• Fairness must be designed upfront, not improvised after the fact. When rules change midstream, trust and credibility collapse.
  [16:09]
• Old vs. new definitions of diversity: Counting boxes (race, gender, disability) vs. cultivating perspectives (background, education, class, experience).
  [18:08]
• Smarter DEI means transparency and contribution. Say what corrective measures are for, and value what people bring rather than just who they are.
  [21:31]
• Pendulum extremes don’t build resilience. DEI swung too far left into wokeism and cancellation culture, now far right with corporations scrapping programs. The balance lies in practical impact, not ideology.
  [23:43]

Detailed Resources & Links

Cases and Examples Mentioned:

• Harvard Admissions (2023 Supreme Court ruling) – Race-conscious admissions ruled unconstitutional.
• UC Berkeley / UCLA (1990s) – Affirmative action and Proposition 209 in California.
• Brazilian University Quotas – Large-scale affirmative action and its effects.
• Canada Indigenous Priorities – Scholarships and hiring carve-outs for Indigenous applicants.
• South Africa Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) – Post-apartheid redistribution and its controversies.
• Ricci v. DeStefano (2009, U.S.) – Firefighter promotion exam and reverse discrimination lawsuit.

Subscribe to It’s an Inside Job on your favourite podcast platform, and join my weeklyIt's an Inside Job Podcast Newsletter for distilled takeaways and practical strategies on resilience, leadership, and well-being.

Chapters

• 0:08 Introduction to DEI
• 1:31 The Political Sensitivity of DEI
• 1:44 Exploring DEI Perspectives
• 7:27 DEI in Higher Education
• 11:33 DEI in Canada
• 14:20 DEI in Work and Economics
• 15:29 The Ricci Case and Its Implications
• 17:38 Rethinking Definitions of Diversity
• 22:16 The Complexity of DEI
• 23:43 Conclusion on DEI and Resilience

Transcript

0:04

This is It's an Inside Job, and I'm your host, Jason Lim. This is the show where we explore the stories, strategies, and science behind growing resilience, nurturing well-being, and leading with intent. Because when it comes down to it, it's all an inside job. Have you ever noticed how dei that's diversity equity and inclusion can mean very different things depending on who you ask for some it's opportunity and fairness for others it feels like reverse discrimination or just another box ticking exercise i've seen both sides of the debate in my work. And in this episode, I want to share my take. This is my commentary where DEI helps, where it backfires, and how I think it could be improved. Because for me, redefining diversity isn't about quotas. It's about the experiences and perspectives people bring. And when we start there, I truly believe we lay the groundwork for real resilience in individuals and teams and across organizations. So I know this is a political minefield, but it's one I'm willing to walk through. I want to breach the walls and have a discussion and debate that is truly and sorely needed. And so without further ado, let's slip into the stream into this week's episode. Thank you. Well, welcome back to the show and to a politically sensitive episode, at least from my perspective. We are going to discuss or I'm going to discuss my opinion about DEI. Because I think it's a very relevant and pertinent and important subject and topic to debate, to have a discussion around. And so this is an opinion piece, meaning it is just my opinion, my take on things. But it's not just something that I've been randomly been thinking about. It's something I've given some deep thought about. And I've talked to a number of different professionals. And so the reason I decided to write and record this particular episode is after hearing the same frustrations from very different corners. For example, HR professionals tell me they feel like police officers, not partners. They're expected to enforce DEI policies, but they're walking on political eggshells. They say sometimes that one clumsy phrase in a workshop or one initiative that looks too heavy-handed, and suddenly they're on the defensive. And on the flip side, I hear from a number of clients who feel the system has turned against them. They insist they've lost out, not because of merit, but because of their skin color. They watch positions or admissions slip away, convinced they've been sidelined for the sake of someone else's box. That's when the words reverse discrimination come up quite often. So let me be clear, this is an opinion piece. It's my attempt to sort through what I've seen, to weigh the promise of DEI against its pitfalls, and maybe to suggest ways it might actually improve. Now, I don't have the final word. I don't have an answer. All I want to do is to constructively contribute to this very important topic. So I don't want to be politically correct here, nor should I. This is my show. I wish to choose and I wish to speak frankly and directly to you as my listener. So I'd rather speak plainly than let the debate collapse into just some sort of slogans, you know, slinging slogans around. So what is it that we mean by DEI? Well, that acronym gets thrown around as we all agree on what it means. And here's the truth. And I think this is obvious to all of us. We don't. We don't all agree. And here's the bare bones version of it. So diversity. And that might be defined as who's in the room. It's usually measured by race, gender, religion, or disability. But there's more. There's like knowledge and class, geography and upbringing and education. The experiences that shape how each of us sees the world. Then there's E for equity, and that's fairness. Not everyone gets the same thing, but everyone gets what they need to succeed. For one person, that's mentorship. For another, it could show up as financial support. And for someone else, well, maybe it's an accessible workplace. Then there's I for inclusion, and that's belonging. It's not just about filling quotas. It's about making people feel they have a voice, and that voice is valued. On paper, the formula looks clean and tidy. In practice, as we all know quite well, it's anything but. So if we rewind back a little and ask, why did DEI take root? Well, DEI isn't just some sort of fad flavor of the month. It exists for reasons that shouldn't be ignored. For example, repairing damage. For example, African-Americans in the U.S. or indigenous people from my home country in Canada, black South Africans under apartheid, and people with disabilities worldwide, well, they have faced systematic exclusion. And without intervention, those wounds don't just heal themselves. Then there's opening doors. And that's about programs and scholarships that crack open spaces that once felt sealed shut. Now, a student who thought university was impossible suddenly gets a shot. A disabled applicant finally lands an interview because the hiring process was redesigned. Then there's better outcomes. Teams that draw on different experiences often solve problems more creatively. They avoid groupthink. They argue, yes, but they also build resilience. Done well, DEI is less about lowering standards and more about letting talent rise where it used to be ignored. So when DEI goes off the rails, and again, this is my particular opinion about it, my way of looking at it. And for me, the trouble starts when policies designed to open doors feel like they're slamming others shut. The sharpest clashes often happen not between majority and minority groups, but among minorities themselves. So I want to make this more tangible. I want to make it more concrete. I want to explore different examples where this shows up. For example, in education. Now, I've done some research, some background research, and I want to pull up several examples that have been in the light of the media, but also that gives it some grounding as to why I hold the opinion I do. So let's start in the area of higher education or schools and universities and colleges. And this has to do with Harvard in the U.S. Now, in 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Harvard's race-conscious admission system after a lawsuit brought by Asian American students. Now, the plaintiffs argued that despite being at the top of the applicant pool in measurable academic performance, for example, higher SAT scores and stronger GPAs and often more rigorous extracurricular involvement, they were admitted at a disproportionately lower rate than Black, Hispanic, or Native American peers. Now, the evidence was quite controversial. It showed that Harvard's admissions officers often gave Asian applicants lower personal ratings, scoring them down on subjective traits like likability and leadership or courage. Too many families, this felt like proof that their children's success had become a penalty and not an advantage and, Now, supporters of affirmative action countered that race-conscious admissions were necessary to correct centuries of systematic exclusion faced by Black and Hispanic students, whose schools and resources often lag behind. But the court ultimately sided with the plaintiffs, declaring Harvard's practices unconstitutional. Now, for Asian American families, it was a validation of long-standing grievances. For advocates of affirmative action, it was a devastating setback that stripped universities of a key tool for building racially diverse campuses. Now, another example from the U.S. and Berkeley. In the 1990s, Asian American students began to dominate admissions at top California universities like Berkeley and UCLA, making up more than 40% of incoming classes despite being a smaller share of the state's population. The reason? Well, they had the highest test scores and GPAs explain much of this rise. But critics accused the schools of quietly capping Asian enrollment to make space for other underrepresented minorities. The suspicion was that admission officers, unable to openly restrict numbers, well, they leaned more heavily on subjective matters like essays or recommendations to curb Asian representation. In 1996, California has approved Proposition 209, banning affirmative action in public institutions. Asian enrollment surged even further, while Black and Latino emissions dropped sharply. The outcome revealed a zero-sum dynamic. One group's gains seemed to come at another's expense. The lesson was quite sobering. Without systematic investment in early education, affirmative action and policies risk becoming a reshuffling of admissions rather than a true leveling of opportunity. So let's still stay in the education domain, but let's move over to Brazil. Now, Brazil introduced one of the largest affirmative action programs in the world, reserving nearly half of public university seats for blacks, indigenous and low income students. The policy was the landmark attempt to reverse centuries of racial and economic inequality. Studies later show that beneficiaries often achieved higher early career earnings and better social mobility. Than they would have without the program. But the policy also displaced some high-scoring students from wealthy or mixed-race families, and that sparked fierce debate about fairness. Critics argued that merit was being sacrificed. Supporters, well, they pointed to Brazil's deep racial inequities and insisted that without such policies, the country's elite universities would remain enclaves of the privileged. Brazil's experiments show both the promise and the pain of DEI. Lives transformed on one side, while resentment and perceived injustice on the other. Now, if we jump to my home country of Canada, and we're going to be talking about Canada's Indigenous priorities. Now, in Canada, many universities and government agencies reserve scholarships, grants, or hiring slots specifically for Indigenous applicants. The aim, well, it's to address centuries of systematic exclusion, cultural erasure, and ongoing disparities in health, education, and employment. But these carve-outs have created tension with other minority groups, particularly immigrants from Asia and Africa and the Middle East. Many of them, themselves, well, they face racism and economic barriers, yet are excluded from these programs. People with disabilities also voice similar frustration, arguing that race dominates the DEI conversation while accessibility, well, it's often sidelined. So the question becomes, who counts as historically disadvantaged enough to qualify? Drawing those boundaries always leaves some people feeling excluded, even if the original intent is justifiable. So what are the leadership takeaways when it comes to the educational space with universities and colleges and just general higher education? You know, the cases of Harvard and Berkeley and Brazil and Canada and many more that I haven't mentioned. All these university quotas all point to the same lesson. If you only adjust admissions criteria, you're treating symptoms, not causes. Shuffling who gets admitted without addressing unequal preparation is like moving pieces on a chessboard without teaching everyone how to play. Students from underfunded schools or families without resources for tutoring or communities where colleges feel out of reach will always be at a disadvantage if the only yardstick is to test scores or essays. Quotas and race-conscious admissions may change the mix of who gets in, but that doesn't close the readiness gap. That's why resentment grows. Some people feel unfairly excluded while others arrive unprepared for the challenge ahead. So for leaders, whether it's in education, business, or government, I think the message is quite clear. Don't just tweak who gets selected. Invest in who gets prepared. It's about building pipelines. And what I mean by that is through mentoring or outreach programs, training, scholarships, and access to the kinds of opportunities that make competition fair in the first place. When the pipeline is strong, merit and equity stop being enemies. They start reinforcing each other. Again, that's my opinion. I mean, that's the foundation for long-term resilience. And that at an individual level, institutional, and entire system level. So let's shift the domain now to work and economics. And let's jump over to South Africa. Now, after apartheid, South Africa introduced Black Economic Empowerment, or BEE. These policies to transfer business ownership, jobs, and educational opportunities toward Black Africans, the group most systematically oppressed under apartheid. But Indian South Africans and mixed-race communities who also lived under discriminatory laws complained that BEE policies sidelined them. For many, it felt like trading one hierarchy of privilege for another. Supporters of BEE argued that the depth of oppression faced by black Africans demanded bold corrective actions. Critics, on the other hand, insisted that true equity couldn't ignore the overlapping disadvantages of other non-white groups. South Africa's experience highlights DEI's hardest challenge. History is layered. It's complicated. And policies that repair one injustice can easily inflame another. Okay, one last example. This was in the U.S. 2009. It was Ricci versus DeStafano. Now, in New Haven, Connecticut, firefighters sat for a promotion exam. White and Hispanic candidates scored well. Black candidates didn't. Fearing a lawsuit over the disproportionate impact, the city threw out the results. Those who had passed, mostly white and Hispanic, sued claiming reverse discrimination. The ruling underscored the dilemma facing many institutions or organizations. Should we enforce test results and risk reinforcing disparities? Or should we discard them and risk punishing those who performed well? Well, either choice reduces resentment. Ritchie remains one of the clearest examples of DEI colliding with principles of merit, fairness, and trust. So what are the takeaways here? The Ritchie case and the South Africa's BEE policies highlight a common trap. When fairness feels improvised, people lose confidence in the system itself. In New Haven, firefighters who passed the test felt robbed when the rules changed after the fact. In South Africa, Indian and colored communities who had lived under discrimination too, well, they felt as though history was being rewritten for them. Now, leaders can't afford to let fairness look like an afterthought. Processes must be designed to balance equity and merit from the start, from the get-go, with criteria that are transparent and consistent. When expectations are clear, even those who don't succeed can at least respect the process. But if employees or communities suspect the rules are shifting under their feet, well, trust and credibility, they unravel. And once trust is gone, so does resilience. Resilient organizations don't build strength by constantly patching over resentment. They build it by setting standards that everyone understands, explaining the purpose behind corrective measures and sticking to the rules that they create. Equity has to be embedded in the foundation, not tacked on as a retrofit. If you want to build trust credibility, in my eyes, this is the way you do it. Music. And maybe define old versus new diversity as I see it. Now, here's the crux. What do we mean when we say diversity? Now, an old definition of diversity is almost like a checkbox diversity. There's race, there's gender, there's religion, there's disability. And here's where I'll be blunt. The one that I don't think belongs in this is religion. For me, faith is a choice. It's not fixed like skin color or a disability People adopt religions, leave them or blend them To me that makes it fundamentally different I truly believe treating religion as diversity As a diversity category While it risks putting personal ideology On the same level as structural exclusion There are also problems too For example, fragmentations There's thousands of religions and sects Who decides which count? Then there's conflict. There are some doctrines, some belief systems that directly oppose gender equality of the rights of LGB people. Including them as diversity markers can force impossible clashes. Then there's also the shifting identity. Unlike race, religion isn't stable. Should HR departments really be tracking it? Now, this may not apply to in every case. Of course not. I'm talking about a generality here. I can't dive into specific cases, but I think there needs to be more debate around this, more discussion. None of this means that faith should be excluded from workplaces or schools. People deserve freedom of religion, there's no doubt, free from discrimination. But that's a human right, not a diversity quota. So what I'd like to do is propose a new definition of diversity, an experiential diversity that's based on knowledge, that's based on life experience, educational path, background, which could include class or geography or upbringing. It can also include perspectives and ways of thinking. I mean, for example, picture a team built two different ways. One is diverse by the boxes it checks, race and gender are balanced, but everyone went to the same kind of school and thinks the same way. The other mixes, an Ivy League grad with a self-taught coder, a career changer, someone raised abroad, someone who grew up in poverty, someone who came through vocational training, someone who's older, someone who's younger. That team won't be comfortable, far from it, but it will definitely be creative. That's the difference between counting faces and cultivating perspectives. Trying to figure out DEI is like walking a tightrope. So where does this leave us? DEI isn't a cure-all, but it isn't the poison either. It's a tool. And used with care and deliberation, it can expand opportunity and possibilities for people. Used crudely, well, it becomes ineffective. It creates resentment. It creates an underlying animosity. It can create unintended division. So what does smarter DEI mean for me, from my perspective? It means pipelines and not quotas. It's about building mentorship. It's about building outreach and accessibility so people succeed on merit. It's about transparency. Say what you're doing and why. For example, this program exists to repair this harm. Honesty builds legitimacy. What I also think is a broader scope, a broader lens. It's about keeping identity in the picture, of course. But to put equal weight on experience, knowledge, and perspective, merit is so important. And this reduces tokenism and puts value back on contribution. So the goal isn't to shuffle chairs at the table. It's to expand the table itself. So as we come close to the end of this episode i just want to say that i know this is going to push someone's buttons there be people who completely reject anything i've said today which is cool and there are other people who will agree that's just as cool and there will be some people sort of somewhere in the middle in the gray zone which may agree with some points and disagree with others. That's okay. Because DEI is full of paradoxes. It opens doors while closing others. It repairs inequities while at the same time creating new ones. So what I'm offering here are just suggestions, not commandments. DEI has a potential, but only if we admit where it falters. And if we don't question and refine it, well, it risks becoming a rigid doctrine or worse, a source of new harm. Diversity isn't just who we are or who you are. It's what you bring to the game. It's what you bring to the table in the sense of your experiences and your perspectives and your education and your skill sets and your knowledge. And if DEI is going to last, it needs to stop counting heads. And to start counting contributions. Music. Well, folks, you've just heard my take on DEI, where it helps, where it backfires, and why I think it needs a reset. Now, these are my reflections shaped by the stories and examples we've walked through today. Here's what I keep coming back to, resilience, whether it's for individuals, for teams, or organizations. It can't be built on shifting rules or on surface level fixes. Far from it. If fairness looks improvised, trust collapses. Credibility, it melts away. If admissions or hiring reshuffle without fixing the pipeline, well, resentment festers. And underlying animosity is just percolating just below the surface. And we've all seen the pendulum swing. For a while, DEI was pushed so far to the left, it got tangled up with wokeism and cancel culture. Where people were afraid to speak their minds. Now, while it's swinging hard in the opposite direction, the pendulum is swinging far to the right, with corporations across North America scrapping DEI initiatives altogether, treating them as liabilities instead of tools for growth. Of course, neither extreme builds trust and neither creates resilience. Resilience systems in my opinion come from the clarity and consistency it's about setting transparent standards it's about building pipelines that prepare people to succeed and valuing contributions over check boxes if dei is going to endure it has to find the balance not bloody ideology not performative politics but practical impact it has to stop counting heads It has to start counting what people bring and contribute with. That's the only way it becomes not just fair, but stronger, more resilient. A big thanks for allowing me to be part of your week. If any of you are on LinkedIn and wish to join me, please connect. I also have an Inside Job podcast newsletter that I release every Wednesday on LinkedIn, where I curate the insights and the takeaways from that week's episode. And delineate it down to a concise form that is pragmatic, practical, and useful. Well, until Friday, when we will meet again, keep well, keep strong, and we'll speak soon. Music.