Those of sane mind know that D.E.I. is a problem, especially as mandated by faceless bureaucracies, cloaked in a veneer of goodness. After all, diversity, equality and inclusivity seem admirable, or at least not morally objectionable.
The problem, of course, is that life is about much more than these three analogues to the French revolutionaries’ liberté, égalité, fraternité, especially when these ends contradict higher and more important qualities, such as, say, competence and excellence. In any field that matters, we want the good, if not the very good, and often, the best, or the best of the best. It matters not what their place of birth, creed, culture, tone of skin or sex may be.
The tentacles of the many-headed hydra of D.E.I. first encroached upon areas of life that may matter in the long run, but not so much in the short: literature and philosophy departments; government jobs; sociology and social work. To hire not so much on merit, or even without merit, but based on accidental qualities, ones that had little bearing on one’s merit. There were problems, but they were more or less on the horizon for most of us.
Now, however, D.E.I. is encroaching – rapidly and with force – upon jobs that do matter, not only in the short, but the immediate run, the secularly sacred realm of S.T.E.M. – science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The title of this article says much: The Ruthless Politicization of Science Funding: Ideological DEI mandates risk corrupting knowledge production at the root.
This is where the rubber hits the road – quite literally, as when landing a plane in a thunderstorm with wind shear. You don’t want the pilot who barely passed, and sailed through to fulfill some sort of quota, on whatever arbitrary basis you like. Nor do we want bridges built by engineers who barely scraped through calculus; or surgeons whose knowledge of anatomy is less than cutting edge; or mechanics who can’t tell a plumber’s from a torque wrench; or air-traffic controllers who struggle with drug addiction and sleep deprivation. Even in building up knowledge in the laboratory, would we not want brilliance, insight, the upper percentiles on the ever-narrowing grade curve, regardless of who they are?
Merit may be defined as the reward or recompense for doing things well. If there are true obstacles to some seeking such excellence, they should be removed. But we must not let go of striving for that excellence, and spiral down the path of mediocrity, or worse.
Rather, as Christ says, be ye perfect, as your heavenly Father is.
Semper altius, amici mei +