Who's Afraid of Big Bad DEI? This acronym is now almost toxic. The word creates an almost immediate tension between those who accept it and those who want it dead.
A prime example of this division was the response to a post on X last week by Alexandr Wang, founder of startup Scale AI. He wrote about how to move away from DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) and embrace “MEI” of merit, excellence, and intelligence.
“Size is a meritocracy, and we must always remain one,” Wang wrote. “Any time we invite someone to our mission, it’s a big deal, and that decision has never been swayed by orthodoxy, virtue signaling, or current circumstances.”
Commentators on X, including Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, and Brian Armstrong, were delighted. But on LinkedIn, the startup community's response was less than enthusiastic. The commenters noted that Wang's post made it seem as if “meritocracy” was the definitive criteria for finding qualified job candidates, without considering that the concept of meritocracy itself is subjective. In the days since the post, more and more people have shared their thoughts and opinions with Wang about the current state of DEI in tech.
“This post is wrong because proponents of the meritocracy argument are ignoring the structural reasons why some groups are more likely to perform better than others,” Mutale Nkonde, founder of the AI policy field, told TechCrunch. said. “We all want the best talent for the job, and there is data to prove that diverse teams are more effective.”
Emily Witko, HR expert at AI startup Hugging Face, told TechCrunch that while the post was a “dangerously oversimplified statement,” it “publicly expressed feelings that aren't always expressed publicly, and it made the audience there too anxious about X.” “I got attention,” he said. “I want to attack DEI.” Wang's MEI thought it “makes it very easy to refute or criticize any conversation about the importance of acknowledging underrepresentation in tech.”
But Wang isn't the only Silicon Valley insider to attack DEI in recent months. He joins the ranks of those who believe that DEI programs implemented by companies over the past few years, starting with the height of the Black Lives Matter movement, have led to a decline in corporate profitability and an overdue return to “meritocratic principles.” In fact, much of the tech industry has been working to dismantle hiring programs that, under previous hiring regimes, considered candidates who were often overlooked during the hiring process.
In 2020, many organizations and influential figures have come together to seek change and pledged to focus more on DEI. Contrary to the mainstream discussion, this is about ensuring that people are not hired simply based on the color of their skin. Qualified people from all walks of life, regardless of skin color, gender, or ethnic background, are better represented and included in the hiring funnel. It also involves looking at gaps and pipeline issues and analyzing why certain candidates are consistently overlooked during the hiring process.
A report from HR staffing firm Harnham found that the level of new female hires in the U.S. data industry in 2023 will fall by two-thirds, from 36% in 2022 to 12%. Meanwhile, the percentage of Black, Indigenous, and people of color professionals in data roles at VP and above was just 38% in 2022.
DEI-related job listings have also declined in popularity, with a 44% decline in 2023, according to data from recruiting site Indeed. In the AI industry, a recent Deloitte survey of women found that more than half said they left at least one employer because of the way men and women were treated differently, and 73% said they left the tech industry due to unequal pay and incompetence. It turns out that he has considered leaving completely. To advance your career.
But for an industry that prides itself on being data-driven, Silicon Valley can't abandon the idea of a meritocracy. Even though all the data and research shows that such thinking is just a belief system and can lead to biased results. The idea of going out and hiring “the best person for the job” without any consideration of human sociology is how pattern matching occurs. That said, teams and companies are made up of similar people, and research over time has shown that more diverse teams perform better. . Moreover, it only amplified curiosity about who Valley evaluates as superior and why.
Experts we interviewed said this subjectivity revealed other problems with Wang's letter. Mainly that he presents MEI as a revolutionary idea rather than one long embraced by Silicon Valley and most corporate America. The acronym “MEI” appears to be a derogatory nod to DEI. This is intended to dissuade the notion that companies should hire diverse candidates or choose from candidates who meet certain “objective” qualifications.
Natalie Sue Johnson, co-founder of DEI consulting firm Paradigm, told TechCrunch that research shows that meritocracy is paradoxical and that organizations that focus too much on meritocracy actually see increased bias. “It frees people from the idea that they have to work hard to make fair decisions,” she continued. “They think meritocracy is something you’re born with, not something you have to achieve.”
As Nkonde noted, Johnson pointed out that Wang's approach fails to acknowledge that minority groups face systemic barriers that society is still struggling to address. Ironically, the most admired people may be those who have acquired the skills needed for a job despite barriers affecting their educational background or preventing them from padding their resumes with impressive college internships in Silicon Valley.
Johnson said it's a mistake to treat candidates as faceless and nameless without understanding their unique experiences and employability. “There are nuances.”
Witko added: “Because meritocratic systems are built on standards that reflect the status quo, they will perpetuate existing inequalities by continuing to favor those who already have an advantage.”
To be somewhat charitable to Wang, considering how acidic the term DEI has become, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to develop a new term that, even if “meritocracy” is misguided, still represents the value of fairness to all candidates. And his post suggests the value of Scale AI. could do Even if you don't realize it, you're aligned with the spirit of diversity, equity and inclusion, Johnson said.
“Casting a broad net of talent and making objective hiring decisions that don’t disadvantage candidates based on their identity is what diversity, equity and inclusion work is all about,” she explained.
Where Wang undermines this, however, is in endorsing the mistaken belief that meritocracy will produce results based solely on individual ability and merit.
Perhaps it is all a paradox. Scale AI's treatment of its data annotators (many of whom live in third-world countries and live on meager salaries) suggests the company has little real interest in disrupting the status quo.
Annotators at Scale AI work eight-hour days, with no breaks, and are paid as little as $10 (according to Verge and NY Mag). It's thanks to the support of these commentators that Scale AI has built a business valued at over $13 billion and with over $1.6 billion in cash in the bank.
When asked to comment on the claims made in the Verge and NY Mag articles, a spokesperson pointed to this blog post and described human annotation work as “gig work.” A spokesperson did not comment on TechCrunch's request for clarification on Scale AI's MEI policy.
Johnson said Wang's post is a great example of the box many leaders and companies are stuck in.
She wondered whether she could believe that having meritocratic ideals would be enough to lead to truly meritocratic outcomes and promote diversity.
“Or do we recognize that ideals alone are not enough and that intention is needed to build a more diverse workforce where everyone has equal access to opportunities and can do their best work?”
